OrthodoxWiki - User contributions [en]

Antiochian House of Studies

2011-10-01T21:27:56Z

CircularReason: /* Programs */ added pastoral care program

The Antiochian House of Studies is an umbrella organization for the graduate-level study of Orthodox Theology and related subjects. Providing a forum for all the theological and pastoral education activities of the [[Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America]], who sponsers it.

== Programs ==

The Antiochian House of Studies offers four degree programs, three of which are accreditted.

The [[St. Stephen's Course in Orthodox Theology]] offers a certificate in Orthodox Theology and, though accredited, is respected in the Antiochian Archdiocese and others. It does not automatically qualify the recipient for ordination, but may be helpful to that end, under the direction of the hierarchs.

The [[St. Stephen's Course in Orthodox Theology]] offers a Master of Arts in Applied Orthodox Theology and is accredited through St. John Damascus School of Theology in Lebanon.

The [[Doctor of Ministry]] program offers a terminal doctor of ministry degree and is accredited through the Pittsburgh Theological Seminary.

The Pastoral Care program offers a degree in pastoral care for working clergy, ministers, and psychologists in the Church.

The Clergy Symposium is a biennial conference for all clergy of the Archdiocese, and provides a forum for both theory and praxis in the ministry of the priesthood.

== Administration ==

The director is Fr. Joseph Allen. The adminstrative staff consists of Dn. Peter, and there are several other revolving administrators as part of the Antiochian Village.

Deacon Peter can be reached at (201) 569–0095 or theoedu1@aol.com.

Antiochian House of Studies

2011-10-01T21:26:33Z

CircularReason: /* Administration */

The Antiochian House of Studies is an umbrella organization for the graduate-level study of Orthodox Theology and related subjects. Providing a forum for all the theological and pastoral education activities of the [[Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America]], who sponsers it.

== Programs ==

The Antiochian House of Studies offers four degree programs, three of which are accreditted.

The [[St. Stephen's Course in Orthodox Theology]] offers a certificate in Orthodox Theology and, though accredited, is respected in the Antiochian Archdiocese and others. It does not automatically qualify the recipient for ordination, but may be helpful to that end, under the direction of the hierarchs.

The [[St. Stephen's Course in Orthodox Theology]] offers a Master of Arts in Applied Orthodox Theology and is accredited through St. John Damascus School of Theology in Lebanon.

The [[Doctor of Ministry]] program offers a terminal doctor of ministry degree and is accredited through the Pittsburgh Theological Seminary.

The Clergy Symposium is a biennial conference for all clergy of the Archdiocese, and provides a forum for both theory and praxis in the ministry of the priesthood.

== Administration ==

The director is Fr. Joseph Allen. The adminstrative staff consists of Dn. Peter, and there are several other revolving administrators as part of the Antiochian Village.

Deacon Peter can be reached at (201) 569–0095 or theoedu1@aol.com.

Antiochian House of Studies

2011-10-01T21:25:47Z

CircularReason: New page: The Antiochian House of Studies is an umbrella organization for the graduate-level study of Orthodox Theology and related subjects. Providing a forum for all the theological and pastoral ...

The Antiochian House of Studies is an umbrella organization for the graduate-level study of Orthodox Theology and related subjects. Providing a forum for all the theological and pastoral education activities of the [[Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America]], who sponsers it.

== Programs ==

The Antiochian House of Studies offers four degree programs, three of which are accreditted.

The [[St. Stephen's Course in Orthodox Theology]] offers a certificate in Orthodox Theology and, though accredited, is respected in the Antiochian Archdiocese and others. It does not automatically qualify the recipient for ordination, but may be helpful to that end, under the direction of the hierarchs.

The [[St. Stephen's Course in Orthodox Theology]] offers a Master of Arts in Applied Orthodox Theology and is accredited through St. John Damascus School of Theology in Lebanon.

The [[Doctor of Ministry]] program offers a terminal doctor of ministry degree and is accredited through the Pittsburgh Theological Seminary.

The Clergy Symposium is a biennial conference for all clergy of the Archdiocese, and provides a forum for both theory and praxis in the ministry of the priesthood.

== Administration ==

The director is Fr. Joseph Allen. The adminstrative staff consists of Dn. Peter, and there are several other revolving administrators as part of the Antiochian Village.

St. Stephen's Course in Orthodox Theology

2011-10-01T21:15:47Z

CircularReason: St Stephen's does offer certificate degrees. Also, it's under the Antiochian house of Studies.

The '''St. Stephen's Course in Orthodox Theology''' is a three-year, distance-education-based, certificate program sponsored by the [[Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America]]. Under the [[Antiochian House of Studies]], the non-accredited course is aimed at introducing laiety and clergy alike to the richness of Orthodox theology through rigorous and extensive readings, practical ministry projects. Students also receive in-person instruction during a one-week summer residency.

== Targeted students ==
* Anyone interested in studying Orthodox theology but unable to attend an Orthodox [[Seminaries and Theological Schools|seminary]].
* Clergy converting to Orthodoxy within the Antiochian Archdiocese and intending to petition for ordination, who have received a Masters of Divinity degree from a non-Orthodox seminary.
* Those seeking advanced training in Christian Education or Youth Ministry.
* Those who are permitted by their [[bishops]] to prepare for the ministry of the [[diaconate]] through means of this course.

== Curriculum ==
=== Directed readings ===
Each year of the program consists of two semesters, during each of which the student completes significant directing readings in the subjects of scripture, doctrine, Church history, liturgy, and practical theology. Each course is designed and mentored by a recognized Orthodox educator or theologian. Auxiliary support is provided by local clergy.

Examinations take the form of substantial written essays. Five to ten such essays are completed at the end of each semester.

=== Directed projects ===
In addition, for each year of the program the student must complete a major project. The project is mentored and must conform to requirements set forth in the syllabus, but the topic is left to the discretion of the student. Some suggested projects include:

* A year-long adult education class, focusing on the weekly Gospel lessons.
* Development of educational materials for use in the church school program--pamphlets, videos, books, etc.
* A written document for publication that focuses on Orthodoxy and adds to the knowledge base of the faith.

=== Residency program ===
To fulfill the requirements for the certificate and master's programs, students must also complete three consecutive units of the ''Antiochian House of Studies'' residency program--one for each year of the St. Stephen's Course.

Each unit of the residency program consists of one week of intense instruction at the Heritage and Learning Center at [[Antiochian Village]] in Ligonier, PA. Each day of the program is packed with instructional lectures by leading Orthodox figures. Morning and evening services are celebrated each day. The schedule is quite rigorous, generally beginning at around 8:00 a.m. and ending around 10:00 p.m.

Accomodations at Antiochian Village are spartan but comfortable. Each room has a writing table, beds, icons, alarm clock, and bathroom. There are no televisions.

Meals are quite good and Antiochian Village boasts a tremendous library.

== Applications ==
Applications to the program must be submitted by August 1 of each year. The first unit begins in October and exams are mailed in January. The second unit begins in March and exams are mailed in June.

== Tuition ==
As of the 2009-10 term, tuition is $450 per semester.

== External link ==
* St. Stephen's Course [http://www.antiochian.org/638 official website]

[[Category:Distance Education Programs]]

Optina Monastery

2011-10-01T21:00:00Z

CircularReason: correcting the "Eldar Zosima"="Elder Ambrose" misconception. Personal conversation with Fr. Nikodemus of St. Herman Brotherhood.

'''Optina Pustyn''', officially '''Svyato-Vvedenskaya Optinakaya Pustyn'''<ref>A. Osipova, "Optina Pustyn", ''
Russian Life'', Vol. 51, No. 2, ISSN 1066-999X #523</ref>, is a male [[monastery]] near Kozelsk which was the most important spiritual center of the [[Church of Russia]] in the nineteenth century. The monastery was famous for the [[monasticism|monastic]] renewal movement in Russia based on the [[hesychasm|hesychastic]] tradition that had been largely lost in the Russian monastic experience in the eighteenth century.
[[Image:06-tar270-optina-01.jpg|right|thumb|375px|Optina Pustyn Monastery in Central Russia]]

==History==
It is not clear when the [[hermitage]] was established. Optina as a monastery had existed since at least the sixteenth century. The monastery is located about 80 miles from Moscow. It had fallen in disrepair in the eighteenth century under the anti-monastic policies of Peter I and Catherine II. In 1790, Metr. Platon of Moscow undertook the restoration of the monastery.

During the late eighteenth century monasticism in Russia enjoyed a revival, significantly influenced by the works and spirituality of the [[Elder]] [[Schema]]-[[monk]] [[Paisius Velichkovsky]], which was spread by his many monastic disciples. At Optina his works found a ‘headquarters’ from which his spirituality expressed in the hesychastic tradition spread throughout Russia. A visible manifestation this spirituality at Optina was conveyed by the lineage of divinely enlightened spiritual fathers, ''startsy'', plural of starets, who served as spiritual guides for the many people who came to the monastery for holy counsel during the nineteenth century.

In addition to counseling, the monastery, through the initiative of Elder Macarius, began publishing patristic texts, an activity in the Church that had been seriously curtailed by Peter I’s reforms. Hieroschema monk Macarius also began editing manuscripts of the translations by Paisius Velichkovsky and his followers of Greek versions of patristic works. Thus, began an effort by the monks of Optina that resulted in production of some 125 books with over 225,000 copies of works by St. [[Isaac the Syrian]], St. [[Symeon the New Theologian]], St. [[Nilus of Sora]], and others that were distributed throughout Russia and was a counter to the secular press that was publishing translations of mystical-philosophical works from the West.

Most of the buildings on the monastery were built in the nineteenth century. A heritage was built for the startsy near the monastery in 1821. Large crowds of devout Christians were attracted to Optina Pustyn, including many notables such as Nikolai Gogal, Ivan Turgenev, Feodor Dostoyevsky, Vasily Zhukovsky, and Vasily Rozanov.

The Bolshevik revolution of 1917 halted the works of the monks. The monastery was closed and the startsy were forced to leave. Some of the Fathers were able to maintain a life at the monastery as an ’agricultural legion’, but in the end the monastic Fathers were dispersed, to die in exile, in prison and labor camps, or to be executed. The buildings of the monastery went into disrepair and some of the structures were demolished.

With Perestroika and the thaw in the atheistic policies of the Soviet government concerning the Church of Russia, Optina Monastery was re-established in 1987. It was one of the first monasteries returned to the Church. This event was followed by the glorification of the Optina startsy in 1990 by the Synod of the Russian Church abroad and in 1996 by the Moscow Patriarchate.

==The Elders==
*[[Moses of Optina|Moses]]: Elder Moses reposed in 1862.
*[[Anthony of Optina|Anthony]]: Elder Anthony reposed in 1865.
*[[‎Leonid of Optina|Leonid]] (Lev or Leo): Elder Leo reposed in 1841.
*[[Macarius of Optina|Macarius]]: Elder Macarius reposed in 1860.
*[[Hilarion of Optina|Hilarion]]: Elder Hilarion reposed in 1873.
*[[Ambrose of Optina|Ambrose]]: Dostoyevsky's character Father Zosima in the novel ''The Brothers Karamazov'' is mostly Dostoyevsky's invention, but draws inspiration from Elder Ambrose. He reposed in 1891.
*[[Anatolius I of Optina|Anatolius]]: Elder Anatolius reposed in 1894.
*[[Isaac I of Optina |Isaac]]: Elder Isaac reposed in 1894.
*[[Joseph (Litovkin) of Optina|Joseph]]: Elder Joseph reposed in 1911.
*[[Barsanuphius of Optina|Barsanuphius]]: Elder Barsanuphius reposed in 1913.
*[[Anatolius II of Optina|Anatolius the Younger]]: Elder Anatolius the Younger reposed in 1922.
*[[Nectarius of Optina|Nectarius]]: Elder Nectarius reposed in 1928.
*[[Nikon of Optina|Nikon the Confessor]]: Elder Nikon the Confessor reposed in 1931.
*Hieromonk [[Isaac II of Optina|Isaac the Younger]]: Hieromartyr Isaac was executed by the Bolsheviks on [[December 26]], 1937, in Tula.

The [[Synaxis]] of these [[Saint]]s of Optina is commemorated on [[October 11]].

== New Hiero-Confessor==
*[[Raphael of Optina|Raphael]]: Elder Raphael reposed in 1957.

==References==
<references/>

==External links==
*[http://www.orthodoxworld.ru/english/sviatyeXX/2/index.htm Optina Fathers]
*[http://www.stherman.com/catalog/Introductions/catalog_chapter_six_intro.htm Optina Fathers]
*[http://www.holytrinityorthodox.com/calendar/los/October/11-05.htm Saints of Optina]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optina Monastery Wikipedia: Optina Monastery]

[[Category:Monasteries]]
[[Category:Russian Monasteries]]

[[ro:Mănăstirea Optina]]

Raphael of Optina

2011-09-18T15:11:21Z

CircularReason: added photo (it's too large)

Our father among the saints, the New Hiero-[[Confessor]] Raphael of Optina (1891 - June 6, 1957) was a Russian monk, priest, and confessor. He suffered twenty years of unjust imprisonment under Communist rule. He was a spiritual son of some of the last of the [[Optina Elders]], such as [[St. Nektary]]. His relics are located in the narthex of Feast of the Transfiguration Church in Optina. He was glorified in 2006 by the Russian Orthodox Church and is commemorated on June 6.

[[Image:Raphael_of_Optina.jpg]]

File:Raphael of Optina.jpg

2011-09-18T15:09:09Z

CircularReason: St Raphael the New Hiero-Confessor. An icon painted by Monk Eugraphus of Optina in 2007.

== Summary ==
St Raphael the New Hiero-Confessor. An icon painted by Monk Eugraphus of Optina in 2007.
== Copyright status ==
Image available online
== Source ==
"An Encounter with St Raphael of Optina" by Elizabeth Alexandrovna Bulgakova, the Orthodox Word, St Herman Press 2011

Talk:Raphael of Optina

2011-09-18T14:59:48Z

CircularReason:

This is a new article based on the St Herman of Alaska Press's latest issue of The Orthodox Word.

I plan to add more details later, but someone else is welcome to.
-[[User:CircularReason|CircularReason]]

Talk:Raphael of Optina

2011-09-18T14:59:15Z

CircularReason: New page: This is a new article based on the St Herman of Alaska Press's latest issue of The Orthodox Word. I plan to add more details later, but someone else is welcome to.

This is a new article based on the St Herman of Alaska Press's latest issue of The Orthodox Word.

I plan to add more details later, but someone else is welcome to.

Raphael of Optina

2011-09-18T14:36:43Z

CircularReason:

Our father among the saints, the New Hiero-[[Confessor]] Raphael of Optina (1891 - June 6, 1957) was a Russian monk, priest, and confessor. He suffered twenty years of unjust imprisonment under Communist rule. He was a spiritual son of some of the last of the [[Optina Elders]], such as [[St. Nektary]]. He was canonized in 2006 and is commemorated on June 6.

Raphael of Optina

2011-09-18T14:36:14Z

CircularReason:

Our father among the saints, the New Hiero-[[Confessor]] Raphael of Optina (1891-6 June, 1957) was a Russian monk, priest, and confessor. He suffered twenty years of unjust imprisonment under Communist rule. He was a spiritual son of some of the last of the [[Optina Elders]], such as [[St. Nektary]]. He was canonized in 2006 and is commemorated on June 6.

Saint titles

2011-09-18T14:30:13Z

CircularReason: added "hiero-confessor

The holy ones of the Orthodox Church have various customary '''saint titles''' with which they are [[saint commemorations|commemorated]] on the [[Church Calendar]] and in divine services.

The following list explains the references:

*'''Confessor''': one who has suffered for the faith but not martyred outright
*'''Hiero-confessor''': one who has suffered for the faith, but not martyred, who is also a [[clergy]]man.
*'''Enlightener of N.''' or '''Illuminator of N.''': the saint who first brought the faith to a people or region, or who did major work of evangelization there
*'''Equal-to-the-Apostles''': one whose work greatly built up the Church, whether through direct missionary work or through assisting the Church's place in society
*'''[[Fool-for-Christ]]''': a saint known for his apparent, yet holy insanity
*'''God-bearer''': one who bears God within himself and is aflame in heart with love for Him [http://home.iprimus.com.au/xenos/ignatius.html]
*'''Great-martyr''': one who was martyred for the faith and suffered torture
*'''Hieromartyr''': a martyr who is also a [[clergy]]man
*'''[[Martyr]]''': one who has died for the faith
*'''Merciful''': one known for charitable work, especially toward the poor
*'''Myrrh-bearer''': one of the women who were present at Christ's passion and went to the tomb to anoint the body of Jesus
*'''Myrrh-streaming''', '''Myrrh-gusher''', or '''Myroblete''': the [[relics]] of the saint exude holy and sweet-smelling (and often miraculous) oil
*'''[[New-martyr]]''': a martyr often bearing the same name as a more ancient martyr, but usually more recent in the Church's history
*'''[[Passion-bearer]]''': one who faced his death in a Christ-like manner
*'''Protomartyr''': the first martyr in a given region (in the case of [[Apostle Stephen the Protomartyr|Stephen the Protomartyr]], the first martyr of the whole Church)
*'''Right-believing''': an epithet used for sainted secular rulers
*'''Righteous''': a holy person under the Old Covenant (Old Testament Israel) but also sometimes used for married saints of the New Covenant (the Church); ''righteous'' may also used as a translation for the Greek ''hosios'', which is usually translated as "venerable."
*'''Unmercenary''': a saint who refused to take payment for healing
*'''Venerable''': a [[monastic]] saint
*'''Venerable-martyr''': a martyred monastic
*'''Virgin-martyr''': an unmarried, non-monastic, chaste female martyr
*'''[[Wonderworker]]''': a saint renowned for performing miracles, also called "miracle-worker"

==See also==
*[[Saint commemorations]]
*[[Honorifics]]

[[Category:Liturgics]]
[[Category:Saints]]

[[ro:Titlurile sfinţilor]]

Raphael of Optina

2011-09-18T14:28:30Z

CircularReason: Adding St Raphael of Optina basic info from the Orthodox Word --- more details pending

Our father among the saints, the New [[Hiero-Confessor]] Raphael of Optina (1891-6 June, 1957) was a Russian monk and confessor. He suffered three terms of unjust imprisonment under Communist rule, total of 20 years. He was spiritual son of the last of the [[Optina Elders]], such as [[St. Nektary]]. He was formally canonized in 2006 and is commemorated on June 6.

OrthodoxWiki:Sandbox

2011-09-18T14:18:23Z

CircularReason:

[Raphael of Optina]

Roman Catholic Church

2010-07-08T21:17:04Z

CircularReason: re-worded section on "spirit and attitude", added citation from Metropolitan Hierothius

The term '''''Catholic Church''''' refers to those Churches (including the [[Eastern Catholic Churches]] and other non-Latin rite churches) in communion with the [[Bishop]] of Rome, the [[Pope]]. It arose in Western Europe, parts of Eastern Europe, and parts of the Middle East (particularly in the area of modern day Lebanon) after the Great Schism in 1054 A.D. In 1054 a [[Great Schism|schism]] between Rome and the other patriarchal sees resulted from widening differences between the Eastern and Western Churches. The cause of the schism was initially a dispute over papal authority and the soundness of theology surrounding the term ''[[filioque]]'', a word which was interpolated by the Western Church to the [[Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed|Creed]] for use in its own liturgy without the consent of the Eastern bishops and contrary to the decision of the First Council of Epheseus (431). Nevertheless, the effects of the schism were not immediately felt everywhere, and it was only over time that the current complete lack of communion between the Eastern Orthodox Churches and Catholic Church became widespread.

Today, the main differences between the [[Orthodox Church]] and the Roman Catholic Church continue to be the inclusion of ''filioque'' in the Creed and the scope of papal authority. Consequent to papal authority, however, the Catholic Church has made pronouncements of [[doctrine]] since the Great Schism (such as [[Purgatory]], the [[Immaculate Conception]], original sin and papal infallibility), which are not sanctioned by the bishops of the Eastern Orthodox Churches. These pronouncements, and the theological understanding behind them, present another obstacle to the unity of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches.

Furthermore, most Orthodox also believe that there has developed a distinct difference in the therapeutic method (Nafpatkos, Illness and Cure of the Soul in the Orthodox Tradition). This difference is rooted in fundamentally different diagnoses of the human condition, including original sin, the fall, human nature, and finally the cure of the soul, which is sanctification or [[theosis]].

Efforts however have been made by the Pope and Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople, amongst other Orthodox bishops, to restore unity, including a visit by Pope Benedict XVI to the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople in 2006.
{{stub}}



==See also==
* For the pre-Schism Orthodox Church of Rome, see [[Church of Rome]].
* [[Maronite Catholic Church]]
* [[Melkite Greek Church]]

==Sources==
* [http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/ccc_toc.htm Catechism of the Catholic Church] - This is the new standard in Roman Catholic teaching, published with the intent to be the basis for local catechisms around the world.

==External links==
* Official website of the [http://www.vatican.va Vatican]
* [http://www.zenit.org Zenit - The World Seen from Rome] - An excellent source of news and reflection for worlds events from a Roman Catholic perspective.
* [http://www.cathwiki.org Cathwiki: The Catholic Encyclopedia and Directory] - The equivalent project for the Roman Catholic Community
* [http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13praec.htm PRAECLARA GRATULATIONIS PUBLICAE] THE REUNION OF CHRISTENDOM Encyclical Letter of Pope Leo XIII June 20, 1894
* Dr. [[w:Anthony Kenny|Anthony Kenny]]. ''[http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/the_tls/article5843760.ece Follies of Roman Catholicism: How the Catholic Church failed to save itself from the Reformation].'' '''TIMESONLINE.''' (From The Times Literary Supplement), March 4, 2009.
===Orthodox Christians on Roman Catholicism===
*[http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles6/HopkoPope.php Roman Presidency and Christian Unity in our Time] by Fr. [[Thomas Hopko]]
*[http://www.myriobiblos.gr/texts/english/milton1_index.html A Survey of the Relations between the Byzantine and the Roman Churches.] – (Milton V. Anastos ) Myriobiblos Library, [[Church of Greece]]
*[http://www.myriobiblos.gr/texts/english/roman_church.htm The Schism of the Roman Church] – (Jοhn Ν. Karmiris) Myriobiblos Library, Church of Greece
*[http://www.oca.org/Docs.asp?ID=186&SID=12 Primacy theme of Catholic-Orthodox dialogue] - V Rev. [[Leonid Kishkovsky]]
[[Category:Non-Orthodox]]
[[ar:كنيسة الروم الكاثوليكي]]
[[es:Iglesia Católica Apostólica Romana]]

Fourth Crusade

2010-07-08T20:42:04Z

CircularReason: /* Final capture of Constantinople */ removed reduntant and emotionally-biased paragraph

{{cleanup|Standardize headers, summarize chronology into prose, standardize formatting. Recommend possible replacement with [[Wikipedia:Fourth Crusade]].}}

The '''Fourth Crusade''' lasted from 1201-1204. Though the Crusades were for the most part an entirely Western phenomenon, this one affected Eastern Church history because the invading Crusaders took Constantinople on [[April 12]], 1204. After defeating the Byzantine Emperor Alexius V (who had usurped the throne from his predecessor Alexius IV, put in power by the Crusaders), they conquered the city and famously looted and desecrated numerous churches, [[iconography|icons]], and [[relics]].<ref>[http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/choniates1.html Nicetas Choniates: The Sack of Constantinople (1204)] - from the ''Medieval Sourcebook.''</ref> They then set up the [[w:Latin Empire|Latin Empire]], based in Constantinople, lasting over 57 years until Byzantine Emperor Michael VIII Palaeologus recaptured Constantinople in 1261. This Crusade is widely regarded as having finalized the [[Great Schism]], as much bitterness towards the West remained even after the restoration of [[Byzantium]].

==Background==
After the failure of the [[w:Third Crusade|Third Crusade]] (1189–1192), there was little interest in Europe for another crusade against the [[Islam|Muslims]]. Jerusalem was now controlled by the [[w:Ayyubid dynasty|Ayyubid dynasty]], which ruled all of Syria and Egypt, except for the few cities along the coast still controlled by the crusader [[w:Kingdom of Jerusalem|Kingdom of Jerusalem]], now centered on [[w:Acre, Israel|Acre]]. The Third Crusade had also established a [[w:Kingdom of Cyprus|Kingdom on Cyprus]].

[[w:Pope Innocent III|Pope Innocent III]] succeeded to the papacy in 1198, and the preaching of a new crusade became the goal of his pontificate. His call was largely ignored by the European monarchs, as the Germans were struggling against Papal power, and England and France were still engaged in warfare against each other. However, due to the preaching of [[w:Fulk of Neuilly|Fulk of Neuilly]], a crusading army was finally organized at a [[w:tournament (medieval)|tournament]] held at [[w:Écry-sur-Seine|Écry]] by [[w:Thibaut III of Champagne|Count Thibaut]] of [[w:Champagne, France|Champagne]] in 1199. Thibaut was elected leader, but he died in 1200 and was replaced by an Italian count, [[w:Boniface I, Marquess of Montferrat|Boniface of Montferrat]]. Boniface and the other leaders sent envoys to Venice, Genoa, and other city-states to negotiate a contract for transport to Egypt, the object of their crusade; one of the envoys was the future historian [[w:Geoffrey of Villehardouin|Geoffrey of Villehardouin]]. Genoa was uninterested, but in March 1201 negotiations were opened with Venice, which agreed to transport 33,500 crusaders, a very ambitious number. This agreement required a full year of preparation on the part of the Venetians to build numerous ships and train the sailors who would man them, all the while curtailing the city's commercial activities. The crusading army was expected to comprise 4,500 knights (as well as 4,500 horses), 9,000 squires, and 20,000 foot-soldiers.

The majority of the crusading army that set out from Venice in October 1202 originated from areas within France. It included men from Blois, Champagne, Amiens, Saint-Pol, the Ile-de-France and Burgundy. Several other regions of Europe sent substantial contingents as well, such as Flanders and Montferrat. Other notable groups came from the [[w:Holy Roman Empire|Holy Roman Empire]], including the men under Bishops Martin of Pairisand and Conrad of Halberstadt, together in alliance with the Venetian soldiers and sailors led by the Doge of Venice [[w:Enrico Dandolo|Enrico Dandolo]]. The crusade was to make directly for the centre of the Muslim world, Cairo, ready to sail on June 24, 1202. This agreement was ratified by Pope Innocent, with a solemn ban on attacks on Christian states.<ref>Philips Hughes. [http://www.ewtn.com/library/CHISTORY/HUGHHIST.TXT "History of the Church"], ''Innocent III & the Latin East''. Sheed & Ward, 1948. pp.370.</ref>

===Papal [[Primacy and Unity in Orthodox Ecclesiology|primacy]] as developed during the Cluniac Reformation (10th-11th c.) and the Gregorian Reform of Pope Gregory VII.===

The [[Monastery]] of Cluny in French Burgundy taught the high doctrine of the power of the Apostolic [[See]]. The Church was to be organized under strict discipline, and [[bishop]]s, [[priest]]s, and [[monk]]s had no rights of their own that were not derived from the pope, the unique source of ecclesiastical authority. In 1039 Cluny's [[abbot]] Odilo turned his [[monastery]] into the head of a monastic feudal system whose influence spread all over Europe. In 1055 the Monastery of Cluny captured the papacy. Pope Innocent III (pope during the Fourth Crusade) carried these Cluniac ideas about the position of the pope as the sole and highest authority in the Church.

It naturally followed, therefore, that Pope Gregory VII (1073-85) conceived of his supremacy over the temporal powers as a domination over both the Eastern and Western Empires. This Gregorian Reform stressed, among other things, the primacy of the papacy over the Empire, the infallability of the Church, and the right of popes to depose emperors.

With this background, and with the experience of the Great Schism in 1054, the papacy's position was that Byzantium was regarded as a rebel, a [[schism|schismatic]] or [[heretic]]al nation which should be brought back to order or eliminated.

===Resentment against Eastern Christendom===

The average European, especially those who lived in the northern territories and had no communication or knowledge of the [[Byzantine Empire]], were taught to believe that the Greeks were ungodly, a nation not worthy to bear the name of Christians. One example is found in the ''[[w:Chronicle of the Morea|Chronicle of the Morea]]'' (a 14th Century text naarating the establishment of western-style feudalism in Frankish Greece), there is a speech recorded which clearly shows the division between the Latins and the Greeks; the papal legate at Zara (1202) stated: "''It is better to brings Christians into agreement and like-mindedness, the Franks and the Greeks, than go to Syria with no hope of success''."(Chronicle of Morea p.82).

Also, in the acccount of the Second Crusade (1147-49), ''De profectione Ludovici VII in Orientem (On Louis VII's journey to the East)'', written by Odo of Deuil, a chaplain to the French King Louis VII and later abbott of Saint-Denis, Odo explains the failure of the Second Crusade in terms of human action rather than as the will of God. He blamed the Byzantine Empire under Manuel Comnenus for the downfall of the Crusade. Odo's prejudice against Byzantium led historian Steven Runciman to describe Odo as "hysterically anti-Greek."

===Anti-Byzantine Sentiment in connection with Previous Crusades and Byzantine Relations with Muslim Empires===

Emperor [[w:Alexios I Komnenos|Alexius I Comnenus]] helped the First Crusade but was very cautious, signing an uneasy treaty and alliance with the Crusaders. Emperor [[w:Manuel I Komnenos|Manuel I Comnenus]] promised to help the Second Crusade and signed the same treaty with the Crusaders, however he could not help because he was engaged in war against the Norman Prince Roger of Sicily, who had invaded Corfu. Manuel had also signed a treaty with the Turks of Iconium; the Crusaders, particularly the Franks, bitterly blamed him for their failure. Emperor [[w:Isaac II Angelos|Isaac II Angelus]] foolishly imprisoned the ambassadors of Emperor Frederick I Barbarossa (Hohenstauffen), head of the Third Crusade, who were sent to negotiate passage through imperial territory. Issac also had concluded a treaty with the Sultan of Iconium, as he was fearful of Frederick's ambitions.

Constantinople was always suspicious of the "Western hordes", sometimes quite unruly, which were passing through its territory full of bigotry and fanaticism against the Islamic nations neighboring the Empire. Besides, the policy of the Byzantine Empire in handling the Moslems and keeping them away was quite opposite to the Crusaders' ideals and blind religious fanaticism. Historian Queller, quoting Runciman, says that "the concept of Christian War appears to be alien to the thought and personality of Jesus, and in fact, it was not looked upon favorably by the Greek Church."

===Commercial Rivalries with Constantinople and Subsequent Avarice===

Envy for the apparent wealth of the Greeks and perhaps the desire to share in some of the precious holy relics and treasure in the churches of the imperial capital was another motivation. The primary sources of the First Crusade speak of the awe the Crusaders felt when they first glanced at the Imperial City and the domes of [[Hagia Sophia (Constantinople)|Hagia Sophia]]; the feeling of inferiority is openly discerned as being at work in the Crusaders as a result. In both of the primary source accounts of Villehardouin and that of the Crusader knight Robert of Clari (4th Crusade), the impression of the Crusaders is recorded, that they were stunned by the unbelievable wealth and the treasure of the holy relics of Constantinople.

===Chronology of Aggressive Actions Between the West and Byzantium===
:* There were bitter memories of recent Byzantine attacks on Westerners (in Sicily; in West Greece in 1098; and in Antioch during the First Crusade).
:* 1149 The King of France Louis VII supported the suggestion that a European League should launch a new crusade against the emperor who was "Christian Only in Name." The capture of Constantinople should be the crusaders first objective. The Norman Roger of Sicily was in support of the idea, but his ally Pope Eugenius III was hesitant only because he feared the possible increase of Roger's power.
:* 1171 Emperor Manuel, having concluded alliances with Pisa and Genoa, decided to strike at Venice by arresting all Venetians in the Empire and confiscating all their ships and goods, symbolizing the degeneration of the Empire's relationship with the West and between Latins and Greeks in Constantinople.
:* 1183-85 During the reign of Emperor Andronicus I Comnenus, there was a great massacre of Italians in Constantinople, and all commerical concessions were withdrawn. Andronicus made many enemies and was eventually overthrown by riots in Constantinople.
:* 1185 Normans took Thessaloniki and subjected inhabitants to merciless treatment, partly for revenge of the massacre of Latins in 1183.
:* 1188 Emperor Isaac II agreed in 1188 to Sultan Saladin's request to build a new mosque (and not just use an existing one) in Constantinople. Its construction is mentioned by Pope Innocent III in a letter of 1210 to the Latin Patriarch of Constantinople, Tommaso Morosini. (''Patrologia Latina'', CCXVI, col. 354.)
:* 1189: The Third Crusade headed by German King Frederick Barbarossa, an enemy of Byzantium, was almost turned against Constantinople. The folly of Isaac I in imprisoning Frederick's ambassadors enraged the Crusaders. They occupied Philippopolis in Thrace, and Frederick wrote to his son Henry to send a fleet and attack the capital. He also wrote to the pope for his blessing, stating that it was necessary to eliminate the Empire if they were going to have any success in their enterprise against the Moslems. Negotiations by Isaac and a treaty averted the danger at that time.
:* 1191 Cyprus taken from Byzantines by English King Richard I "Lion Heart," who sold it in 1198 to Frankish Crusaders from previous Crusades that had been ousted from Jerusalem in 1187 when the Arabs retook it after 88 years.
:* 1197 Henry VI, son of Frederick Barbarossa, made no secret of his hatred of Byzantium and his ambitions to build a Mediterranean dominion. In 1197 a German expedition landed at Acre in Palestine; it was to be the forerunner of a greater army led by Henry himself. Pope Celestine III made no attempt to dissuade him, but he advised him not to attack Constantinople because he was negotiating with the emperor the ''Union of the Churches''. Henry's sudden death at 32 put an end to this German expedition.

==Diversion to Constantinople==
[[Image:Eugène Ferdinand Victor Delacroix 012.jpg|thumb|300px|''The Entry of the Crusaders into Constantinople'' ([[Eugène Delacroix]], 1840). The most infamous action of the Fourth Crusade was the sack of the Orthodox Christian capital city of [[Constantinople]]]]

[[w:Boniface I, Marquess of Montferrat|Boniface of Montferrat]] had left the fleet before it sailed from Venice, to visit his cousin [[w:Philip of Swabia|Philip of Swabia]]. The reasons for his visit are a matter of debate. He may have realized the Venetians' plans and left to avoid [[excommunication]], or he may have wanted to meet with the Byzantine prince [[w:Alexius IV Angelos|Alexius IV Angelus]], Philip's brother-in-law and the son of the recently deposed Byzantine emperor [[w:Isaac II Angelos|Isaac II Angelus]]. Young Alexius had fled to Philip when his father was overthrown in 1195, but it is unknown whether or not Boniface knew he was at Philip's court.

There, Alexius IV offered 200,000 silver marks, 10,000 men to help the Crusaders, the maintenance of 500 knights in the Holy Land, the service of the Byzantine navy to transport the Crusader Army to Egypt and the placement of the [[w:Greek Orthodox Church|Greek Orthodox Church]] under the [[Roman Catholic Church]] if they would sail to Byzantium and topple the reigning emperor Alexius III Angelus. It was a tempting offer for an enterprise that was short on funds. Greco-Latin relationships had been complicated ever since the [[Great Schism]] of 1054.

The Latins of the [[w:First Crusade|First]], [[w:Second Crusade|Second]], and [[w:Third Crusade|Third Crusades]] had been hostile to Constantinople on their way to the Holy Land, whereas the Greeks had been accused of betraying the Crusaders to the Turks. A large number of Venetian merchants were also attacked and deported during anti-Latin riots in Constantinople in 1182. However, the Byzantine prince's proposal involved his restoration to the throne, not the sack of his capital city, which Count Boniface agreed to. Alexius IV returned with the Marquess to rejoin the fleet at Corfu after it had sailed from Zara. The rest of the Crusade's leaders eventually accepted the plan as well. There were many leaders, however, of the rank and file who wanted nothing to do with the proposal, and many deserted. The fleet of 60 war galleys, 100 horse transports, and 50 large transports (the entire fleet was manned by 10,000 Venetian oarsmen and marines) arrived at Constantinople in late June 1203.<ref name="Phillips269">J. Phillips, ''The Fourth Crusade and the Sack of Constantinople'', 269</ref> In addition, 300 siege engines were brought along on board the fleet.<ref name="siege">J. Phillips, ''The Fourth Crusade and the Sack of Constantinople'', 113</ref>

When the Fourth Crusade arrived at Constantinople, the city had a population of 150,000 people, a garrison of 30,000 men, including 5,000 [[w:Varangians|Varangians]], and a fleet of 20 galleys.<ref name="byzantines">J. Phillips, ''The Fourth Crusade and the Sack of Constantinople'', 159</ref> The Crusaders' initial motive was to restore Isaac II to the Byzantine throne so that they could receive the support that they were promised. [[w:Conon de Béthune|Conon of Bethune]] delivered this message to the Lombard envoy who was sent by the reigning emperor [[w:Alexios III Angelos|Alexius III Angelus]], who had deposed his brother Isaac. The citizens of Constantinople were not concerned with the deposed emperor and his exiled son. Usurpations were frequent in Byzantine affairs, and this time the throne had even remained in the same family.

The Crusaders sailed alongside Constantinople with 10 galleys to display Alexius IV, but from the walls of the city the Byzantines taunted the puzzled crusaders, who had been promised that Prince Alexius would be welcomed.<ref name="taunt">J. Phillips, ''The Fourth Crusade and the Sack of Constantinople'', 164</ref> First the crusaders captured and sacked the cities of Chalcedon and Chrysopolis, then they defeated 500 Byzantine cavalrymen in battle with just 80 Frankish knights.<ref name="battle">J. Phillips, ''The Fourth Crusade and the Sack of Constantinople'', 162</ref>

===Siege of July 1203===
To take the city by force, the crusaders first needed to cross the Bosphorus. About 200 ships, horse transports and galleys would undertake to deliver the crusading army across the narrow strait, where Alexius III had lined up the Byzantine army in battle formation along the shore, north of the suburb of Galata. The Crusader's knights charged straight out of the horse transports, and the Byzantine army fled south.
[[Image:Constantinople Mural Fourth Crusade.jpg|thumb|left|300px|A mural depicting the Venetian Fleet entering the [[Golden Horn]] after breaking the chains that protected the city]]
The Crusaders followed south, and attacked the Tower of Galata, which held one end of the chain that blocked access to the Golden Horn. As they laid siege to the Tower, the Greeks counterattacked with some initial success. However, when the Crusaders rallied and the Greeks retreated to the Tower, the Crusaders were able to follow the soldiers through the Gate, and the Tower surrendered. The Golden Horn now lay open to the Crusaders, and the Venetian fleet entered.

On July 11, the Crusaders took positions opposite the Blachernae palace on the northwest corner of the city, and began the siege in earnest on July 17, with four divisions attacking the land walls, while the Venetian fleet attacked the sea walls from the Golden Horn. The Venetians took a section of the wall of about 25 towers, while the Varangian guard held off the Crusaders on the land wall. The Varangians shifted to meet the new threat, and the Venetians retreated under the screen of fire. The fire destroyed about 120 acres of the City.

Alexius III finally took offensive action, and led 17 divisions from the St. Romanus Gate, vastly outnumbering the crusaders. Alexius III's army of about 8,500 men faced the Crusader's 7 divisions (about 3,500 men), but his courage failed, and the Byzantine army returned to the city without a fight.<ref name="battle2">J. Phillips, ''The Fourth Crusade and the Sack of Constantinople'', 177</ref> The retreat and the effects of the fire greatly damaged morale, causing the citizens of Constantinople to turn against Alexius III, who then fled. The destructive fire left 20,000 people homeless.<ref name="fire">J. Phillips, ''The Fourth Crusade and the Sack of Constantinople'', 176</ref> Prince Alexius was elevated to the throne as Alexius IV along with his blind father Isaac.

===Further attacks on Constantinople===
Alexius IV realised that his promises were hard to keep. Alexius III had managed to flee with 1,000 pounds of gold and some priceless jewels, leaving the imperial treasury short on funds. At that point the young emperor ordered the destruction and melting of valuable Byzantine and Roman icons in order to extract their gold and silver, but even then he could only raise 100,000 silver marks. In the eyes of all Greeks who knew of this decision, it was a shocking sign of desperation and weak leadership, which deserved to be punished by God. The Byzantine historian Nicetas Choniates characterized it as "''the turning point towards the decline of the Roman state''".

Thus Alexius IV had to deal with the growing hatred by the citizens of Constantinople for the "Latins" and vice versa. In fear of his life, the co-emperor asked the Crusaders to renew their contract for another six months, to end by April 1204. There was, nevertheless, still fighting in the city. In August 1203 the crusaders attacked a mosque, which was defended by a combined Muslim and Greek opposition. Meanwhile, Alexius IV had led 6,000 men from the Crusader army against his rival Alexius V in Adrianople.<ref name = "exp"/>

On the second attempt of the Venetians to set up a wall of fire to aid their escape, they instigated the "Great Fire", in which a large part of Constantinople was burned down. Opposition to Alexius IV grew, and one of his courtiers, Alexius Ducas (nicknamed 'Murtzuphlos' because of his thick eyebrows), soon overthrew him and had him strangled to death. Alexius Ducas took the throne himself as [[w:Alexios V Doukas|Alexius V]]; Isaac died soon afterward, probably of natural causes.

The crusaders and Venetians, incensed at the murder of their supposed patron, demanded that Murtzuphlos honor the contract which Alexius IV had promised. When the Byzantine emperor refused the Crusaders assaulted the city once again. On April 8, Alexius V's army put up a strong resistance which did much to discourage the crusaders.

The Greeks pushed enormous projectiles onto the enemy siege engines, shattering many of them. A serious hindrance to the crusaders was bad weather conditions. Wind blew from the shore and prevented most of the ships from drawing close enough to the walls to launch an assault. Only five of the Greek towers were actually engaged and none of these could be secured; by mid-afternoon it was evident that the attack had failed.

The clergy discussed the situation amongst themselves and settled upon the message they wished to spread through the demoralized army. They had to convince the men that the events of [[April 9]] were not God's judgment on a sinful enterprise: the campaign, they argued, was righteous and with proper belief it would succeed. The concept of God testing the determination of the crusaders through temporary setbacks was a familiar means for the clergy to explain failure in the course of a campaign.

The clergy's message was designed to reassure and encourage the crusaders. Their argument that the attack on Constantinople was spiritual revolved around two themes. First, the Greeks were traitors and murderers since they had killed their rightful lord, Alexius IV. The churchmen used inflammatory language and claimed that "''the Greeks were worse than the Jews''", and they invoked the authority of God and the pope to take action.

Although Innocent III had again demanded that they not attack, the papal letter was suppressed by the clergy, and the crusaders prepared for their own attack, while the Venetians attacked from the sea. Alexius V's army stayed in the city to fight, along with the imperial bodyguard, the [[w:Varangians|Varangians]], but Alexius V himself fled during the night.

===Final capture of Constantinople===
On [[April 12]] 1204 the weather conditions finally favoured the Crusaders. A strong northern wind aided the Venetian ships to come close to the wall. After a short battle, approximately seventy crusaders managed to enter the city. Some Crusaders were eventually able to knock holes in the walls, small enough for a few knights at a time to crawl through; the Venetians were also successful at scaling the walls from the sea, though there was extremely bloody fighting with the [[w:Varangians#The Varangian Guard|Varangians]]. The crusaders captured the [[w:Blachernae|Blachernae]] section of the city in the northwest and used it as a base to attack the rest of the city, but while attempting to defend themselves with a wall of fire, they ended up burning down even more of the city. This second fire left 15,000 people homeless.<ref name="exp">J. Phillips, ''The Fourth Crusade and the Sack of Constantinople'', 209</ref>

The Crusaders took the city on [[April 12]]. The crusaders inflicted a horrible and savage sacking on Constantinople for three days, during which many ancient and medieval Roman and Greek works were either stolen or destroyed. The magnificent [[w:Library of Constantinople|Library of Constantinople]] was destroyed. Despite their oaths and the threat of excommunication, the Crusaders ruthlessly and systematically violated the city's holy sanctuaries, destroying, defiling, or stealing all they could lay hands on; nothing was spared. It was said that the total amount looted from Constantinople was about 900,000 silver marks. The Venetians received 150,000 silver marks that was their due, while the Crusaders received 50,000 silver marks. A further 100,000 silver marks were divided evenly up between the Crusaders and Venetians. The remaining 500,000 silver marks were secretly kept back by many Crusader knights.

Speros Vryonis in ''Byzantium and Europe'' gives a vivid account of the sack of Constantinople by the Frankish and Venetian Crusaders of the Fourth Crusade:

<blockquote>
The Latin soldiery subjected the greatest city in Europe to an indescribable sack. For three days they murdered, raped, looted and destroyed on a scale which even the ancient Vandals and Goths would have found unbelievable. Constantinople had become a veritable museum of ancient and Byzantine art, an emporium of such incredible wealth that the Latins were astounded at the riches they found. Though the Venetians had an appreciation for the art which they discovered (they were themselves semi-Byzantines) and saved much of it, the French and others destroyed indiscriminately, halting to refresh themselves with wine, violation of nuns, and murder of Orthodox clerics. The Crusaders vented their hatred for the Greeks most spectacularly in the desecration of the greatest Church in Christendom. They smashed the silver iconostasis, the icons and the holy books of [[Hagia Sophia (Constantinople)|Hagia Sophia]], and seated upon the patriarchal throne a whore who sang coarse songs as they drank wine from the Church's holy vessels. The estrangement of East and West, which had proceeded over the centuries, culminated in the horrible massacre that accompanied the conquest of Constantinople. The Greeks were convinced that even the Turks, had they taken the city, would not have been as cruel as the Latin Christians. The defeat of Byzantium, already in a state of decline, accelerated political degeneration so that the Byzantines eventually became an easy prey to the Turks. The Crusading movement thus resulted, ultimately, in the victory of Islam, a result which was of course the exact opposite of its original intention.<ref>Vryonis, Speros. ''Byzantium and Europe''. Harcourt, Brace & World, New York, 1967. pp.152</ref><ref>Philip Hughes. [http://www.ewtn.com/library/CHISTORY/HUGHHIST.TXT "History of the Church Vol II"], ''Innocent III & the Latin East''. Sheed & Ward, 1948. pp.372.</ref> </blockquote>.

According to Choniates, a prostitute was even set up on the Patriarchal throne.<ref>[http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/choniates1.html "The Sack of Constantinople"], Nicetas
Choniates, 1204.</ref> When Innocent III heard of the conduct of his pilgrims, he was filled with shame and strongly rebuked them.

According to a prearranged treaty, the empire was apportioned between Venice and the crusade's leaders, and the Latin Empire of Constantinople was established. Boniface was not elected as the new emperor, although the citizens seemed to consider him as such. The Venetians thought he had too many connections with the former empire because of his brother, [[w:Renier of Montferrat|Renier of Montferrat]], who had been married to [[w:Maria Komnene (Porphyrogenita)|Maria Comnena (Porphyrogenita)]], empress in the 1170s and 80s. Instead they placed [[w:Baldwin I of Constantinople|Baldwin of Flanders]] on the throne. Boniface went on to found the [[w:Kingdom of Thessalonica|Kingdom of Thessalonica]], a vassal state of the new Latin Empire. The Venetians also founded the [[w:Duchy of the Archipelago|Duchy of the Archipelago]] in the Aegean Sea.

Meanwhile, Byzantine refugees founded their own successor states, the most notable of these being the [[w:Empire of Nicaea|Empire of Nicaea]] under [[w:Theodore I Laskaris|Theodore Lascaris]] (a relative of Alexius III), the [[w:Empire of Trebizond|Empire of Trebizond]], and the [[w:Despotate of Epiros|Despotate of Epirus]].

Sir [[w:Edward Gibbon|Edward Gibbon]] stated that the spoils taken during one week in Constantinople equalled seven times the whole revenue of England at that time<ref>Treece, Henry. ''The Crusades''. London, 1962</ref>. The four magnificent bronze horses over the portals of San Marco's Basilica in Venice were snatched from the Byzantine hippodrome, standing monuments of one of the greatest acts of brigandage in history.

The treasures of the city, the books and works of art preserved from distant centuries, were all dispersed and most destroyed. The Empire, the great Eastern bulwark of Christendom, was broken as a power. The conquests of the Ottomans were made possible by the Crusaders' crime<ref>Runciman, Steven. ''Byzantine Civilization''. Cleveland World Publ. Co. 1965. pp.46</ref>.

A Roman Catholic patriarch was established and attempted to introduce Roman Catholicism by force. The new Venetian Patriarch in Constantinople, Tommaso Morosini, was appointed by the Doge of Venice, Enrico Dandolo (the main person who engineered the diversion of the Fourth Crusade); and according to Gibbon, the Venetians employed every art to perpetuate in their own nation the honors and benefices of the Greek church. Morosini appealed to the Pope for aid, and being unable to serve so many derisive masters, he died a madman. The new papal legate, Pelagius, rode into Constantinople dressed in scarlet from head to foot, like a Greek Emperor himself, and soon asserted that the easy days were over: Thenceforth the Greek clergy must adapt themselves in all religious rites and beliefs to those of the Church of Rome. He was prepared to wade through blood, he quickly showed, should the Orthodox Greeks deny any part of his assertion<ref>Treece, Henry. ''The Crusades''. London, 1962. pp.230-231</ref>.

[[Image:Greece_in_1214.JPG|right|thumb|Greece in 1214]]
After the ''[[w:Battle of the Olive Grove of Koundouros|Battle of the Olive Grove of Koundouros]],'' which took place in the spring of 1205, in Messinia, Peloponnese, between the Franks and the Greeks, all the castles and cities of the Peloponnese fell to the Franks. Meanwhile, the Venetians took possession of Crete in 1211, and retained it until ousted by the Ottoman Turks in 1669, a full 458 years later.

===Recovery===
In 1261 Emperor [[w:Michael VIII Palaiologos|Michael Palaeologus]] reconquered Constantinople for the Byzantines, and control of the city at last passed from the Venetians to the [[w:Palaiologos|Paleologus Dynasty]]. Emperor Michael VIII Palaeologus made the city of [[w:Mystras|Mystras]] in the Peloponnese the seat of the new [[w:Despotate of Morea|Despotate of Morea]], where a Byzantine Renaissance occured, which was to last until 1460.
[[Image:Greece_in_1278.JPG|right|thumb|Greece in 1278]]In September of 1259, the Byzantines defeated the Latin Principality of Achaea at the ''[[w:Battle of Pelagonia|Battle of Pelagonia]]'', marking the beginning of the Byzantine recovery of Greece.

==Papal Apology to Orthodox Church==
In May of 2001, Pope [[John Paul II]] visited Athens, Greece, the first visit of a pope in nearly 1300 years. Pope John Paul II and Archbishop [[Christodoulos (Paraskevaides) of Athens|Christodoulos]] met at the Aereopagus, where the [[Apostle Paul]] preached to Athenians 2000 years ago.

Pope John Paul II stated: "''For occasions past and present when the sons and daughters of the Catholic Church have sinned by actions and omission against their Orthodox brothers and sisters, may the Lord grant us the forgiveness we beg of Him.''" Many Orthodox regard this as a "political" apology for the sacking of Constantinople in 1204, as well as for other issues, but it was clearly not in any way or form a religious or doctrinal apology on the part of the Roman Catholic Church.

In April 2004, in a speech on the 800th anniversary of the city's capture, Ecumenical Patriarch [[Bartholomew I (Archontonis) of Constantinople|Bartholomew I]] formally accepted the apology. "''The spirit of reconciliation is stronger than hatred,''" he said during a liturgy attended by Roman Catholic Archbishop Philippe Barbarin of Lyon, France. "''We receive with gratitude and respect your cordial gesture for the tragic events of the Fourth Crusade. It is a fact that a crime was committed here in the city 800 years ago.''" Bartholomew said his acceptance came in the spirit of Pascha. "''The spirit of reconciliation of the resurrection... incites us toward reconciliation of our churches.''"<ref>[http://www.incommunion.org/articles/issue-33/news-issue-33 ''Patriarch accepts Pope’s Apology.''] '' '''In Communion: Website of Orthodox Peace Fellowship''' '', News - Issue 33.</ref>

==Further reading==
*[[Wikipedia:Fourth Crusade]]
* [http://aggreen.net/church_history/1204_sack.html The Sack of Constantinople] - by Nicholas A. Cooke
* ''The Cambridge Medieval History: Vol. IV-The Byzantine Empire: Part 1-Byzantium and Its Neighbours''.

==References==
<div class="small"><references/></div>

==Sources==
* Riley-Smith, Jonathan. ''The Crusades: A Short History''. Great Britian, 1987.
* Vryonis, Speros. ''Byzantium and Europe''. Harcourt, Brace & World, New York, c1967.
* Runciman, Steven. ''Byzantine Civilization''. Cleveland World Publ. Co. 1965.
* Treece, Henry. ''The Crusades''. London, 1962.
* Miller, William. ''The Latins in the Levant: A History of Frankish Greece 1204-1566''. Cambridge, Speculum Historiale, 1908.
* Atiya, Aziz A. ''Crusade, Commerce and Culture''. Indiana University Press, 1962.
* Hussey, J.M. ''The Impact of East and West 1204-1453: Latin Treachery and Byzantine Diplomacy 1204-1261'', In '''''The Byzantine World''''', 1961.
* Ostrogorsky, George. ''The Byzantine State''. Transl. Joan Hussey. Rutgers, 1969.
* Schmandt, Raymond. ''The Fourth Crusade and the Just War Theory''. (article).
* Gregoire, Henri. ''The Question of the Diversion of the Fourth Crusade''. (article).
* Morris, Colin. ''Geoffrey De Villehardouin and the Conquest of Constantinople''. (article).
* Folda, J. "''The Fourth Crusade 1201-1203: Some Reconsiderations''." in Byzantino-Slavica 26(1965),pp.227-290.
* Hughes, Philip. [http://www.ewtn.com/library/CHISTORY/HUGHHIST.TXT "A History of the Church Vol II"]. Sheed & Ward, 1948.
* [http://www.incommunion.org/articles/issue-33/news-issue-33 ''Patriarch accepts Pope’s Apology.''] '' '''In Communion: Website of Orthodox Peace Fellowship''' '', News - Issue 33.

===Primary Sources===
* Joinville and Villehardouin. ''Chronicles of the Crusades''. Transl, M.R.B. Shaw. Penguin Books, 1963.
* Odo of Deuill. ''De Profectione Ludovici VII in Orientem (The Journey of Louis VII to the East).'' Transl Virginia Gingerick Berry. New York, 1948.
* Niketas Choniates. ''O City of Byzantium, Annals of Niketas Choniates''. Detroit 1984.
* Robert de Clari. ''The Conquest of Constantinople''. Transl. Edgar Holmes McNeal, University of Toronto Press, 1996.
* ''The Chronicle of Morea : a history in political verse, relating to the establishment of feudalism in Greece by the Franks in the thirteenth century''. Ed. John Schmitt (1856-1906). Groningen : Bouma's Bockhuis, 1967

[[Category:Church History]]

Fourth Crusade

2010-07-08T20:35:26Z

CircularReason: corrected spelling: "sentement"-->"sentiment"

{{cleanup|Standardize headers, summarize chronology into prose, standardize formatting. Recommend possible replacement with [[Wikipedia:Fourth Crusade]].}}

The '''Fourth Crusade''' lasted from 1201-1204. Though the Crusades were for the most part an entirely Western phenomenon, this one affected Eastern Church history because the invading Crusaders took Constantinople on [[April 12]], 1204. After defeating the Byzantine Emperor Alexius V (who had usurped the throne from his predecessor Alexius IV, put in power by the Crusaders), they conquered the city and famously looted and desecrated numerous churches, [[iconography|icons]], and [[relics]].<ref>[http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/choniates1.html Nicetas Choniates: The Sack of Constantinople (1204)] - from the ''Medieval Sourcebook.''</ref> They then set up the [[w:Latin Empire|Latin Empire]], based in Constantinople, lasting over 57 years until Byzantine Emperor Michael VIII Palaeologus recaptured Constantinople in 1261. This Crusade is widely regarded as having finalized the [[Great Schism]], as much bitterness towards the West remained even after the restoration of [[Byzantium]].

==Background==
After the failure of the [[w:Third Crusade|Third Crusade]] (1189–1192), there was little interest in Europe for another crusade against the [[Islam|Muslims]]. Jerusalem was now controlled by the [[w:Ayyubid dynasty|Ayyubid dynasty]], which ruled all of Syria and Egypt, except for the few cities along the coast still controlled by the crusader [[w:Kingdom of Jerusalem|Kingdom of Jerusalem]], now centered on [[w:Acre, Israel|Acre]]. The Third Crusade had also established a [[w:Kingdom of Cyprus|Kingdom on Cyprus]].

[[w:Pope Innocent III|Pope Innocent III]] succeeded to the papacy in 1198, and the preaching of a new crusade became the goal of his pontificate. His call was largely ignored by the European monarchs, as the Germans were struggling against Papal power, and England and France were still engaged in warfare against each other. However, due to the preaching of [[w:Fulk of Neuilly|Fulk of Neuilly]], a crusading army was finally organized at a [[w:tournament (medieval)|tournament]] held at [[w:Écry-sur-Seine|Écry]] by [[w:Thibaut III of Champagne|Count Thibaut]] of [[w:Champagne, France|Champagne]] in 1199. Thibaut was elected leader, but he died in 1200 and was replaced by an Italian count, [[w:Boniface I, Marquess of Montferrat|Boniface of Montferrat]]. Boniface and the other leaders sent envoys to Venice, Genoa, and other city-states to negotiate a contract for transport to Egypt, the object of their crusade; one of the envoys was the future historian [[w:Geoffrey of Villehardouin|Geoffrey of Villehardouin]]. Genoa was uninterested, but in March 1201 negotiations were opened with Venice, which agreed to transport 33,500 crusaders, a very ambitious number. This agreement required a full year of preparation on the part of the Venetians to build numerous ships and train the sailors who would man them, all the while curtailing the city's commercial activities. The crusading army was expected to comprise 4,500 knights (as well as 4,500 horses), 9,000 squires, and 20,000 foot-soldiers.

The majority of the crusading army that set out from Venice in October 1202 originated from areas within France. It included men from Blois, Champagne, Amiens, Saint-Pol, the Ile-de-France and Burgundy. Several other regions of Europe sent substantial contingents as well, such as Flanders and Montferrat. Other notable groups came from the [[w:Holy Roman Empire|Holy Roman Empire]], including the men under Bishops Martin of Pairisand and Conrad of Halberstadt, together in alliance with the Venetian soldiers and sailors led by the Doge of Venice [[w:Enrico Dandolo|Enrico Dandolo]]. The crusade was to make directly for the centre of the Muslim world, Cairo, ready to sail on June 24, 1202. This agreement was ratified by Pope Innocent, with a solemn ban on attacks on Christian states.<ref>Philips Hughes. [http://www.ewtn.com/library/CHISTORY/HUGHHIST.TXT "History of the Church"], ''Innocent III & the Latin East''. Sheed & Ward, 1948. pp.370.</ref>

===Papal [[Primacy and Unity in Orthodox Ecclesiology|primacy]] as developed during the Cluniac Reformation (10th-11th c.) and the Gregorian Reform of Pope Gregory VII.===

The [[Monastery]] of Cluny in French Burgundy taught the high doctrine of the power of the Apostolic [[See]]. The Church was to be organized under strict discipline, and [[bishop]]s, [[priest]]s, and [[monk]]s had no rights of their own that were not derived from the pope, the unique source of ecclesiastical authority. In 1039 Cluny's [[abbot]] Odilo turned his [[monastery]] into the head of a monastic feudal system whose influence spread all over Europe. In 1055 the Monastery of Cluny captured the papacy. Pope Innocent III (pope during the Fourth Crusade) carried these Cluniac ideas about the position of the pope as the sole and highest authority in the Church.

It naturally followed, therefore, that Pope Gregory VII (1073-85) conceived of his supremacy over the temporal powers as a domination over both the Eastern and Western Empires. This Gregorian Reform stressed, among other things, the primacy of the papacy over the Empire, the infallability of the Church, and the right of popes to depose emperors.

With this background, and with the experience of the Great Schism in 1054, the papacy's position was that Byzantium was regarded as a rebel, a [[schism|schismatic]] or [[heretic]]al nation which should be brought back to order or eliminated.

===Resentment against Eastern Christendom===

The average European, especially those who lived in the northern territories and had no communication or knowledge of the [[Byzantine Empire]], were taught to believe that the Greeks were ungodly, a nation not worthy to bear the name of Christians. One example is found in the ''[[w:Chronicle of the Morea|Chronicle of the Morea]]'' (a 14th Century text naarating the establishment of western-style feudalism in Frankish Greece), there is a speech recorded which clearly shows the division between the Latins and the Greeks; the papal legate at Zara (1202) stated: "''It is better to brings Christians into agreement and like-mindedness, the Franks and the Greeks, than go to Syria with no hope of success''."(Chronicle of Morea p.82).

Also, in the acccount of the Second Crusade (1147-49), ''De profectione Ludovici VII in Orientem (On Louis VII's journey to the East)'', written by Odo of Deuil, a chaplain to the French King Louis VII and later abbott of Saint-Denis, Odo explains the failure of the Second Crusade in terms of human action rather than as the will of God. He blamed the Byzantine Empire under Manuel Comnenus for the downfall of the Crusade. Odo's prejudice against Byzantium led historian Steven Runciman to describe Odo as "hysterically anti-Greek."

===Anti-Byzantine Sentiment in connection with Previous Crusades and Byzantine Relations with Muslim Empires===

Emperor [[w:Alexios I Komnenos|Alexius I Comnenus]] helped the First Crusade but was very cautious, signing an uneasy treaty and alliance with the Crusaders. Emperor [[w:Manuel I Komnenos|Manuel I Comnenus]] promised to help the Second Crusade and signed the same treaty with the Crusaders, however he could not help because he was engaged in war against the Norman Prince Roger of Sicily, who had invaded Corfu. Manuel had also signed a treaty with the Turks of Iconium; the Crusaders, particularly the Franks, bitterly blamed him for their failure. Emperor [[w:Isaac II Angelos|Isaac II Angelus]] foolishly imprisoned the ambassadors of Emperor Frederick I Barbarossa (Hohenstauffen), head of the Third Crusade, who were sent to negotiate passage through imperial territory. Issac also had concluded a treaty with the Sultan of Iconium, as he was fearful of Frederick's ambitions.

Constantinople was always suspicious of the "Western hordes", sometimes quite unruly, which were passing through its territory full of bigotry and fanaticism against the Islamic nations neighboring the Empire. Besides, the policy of the Byzantine Empire in handling the Moslems and keeping them away was quite opposite to the Crusaders' ideals and blind religious fanaticism. Historian Queller, quoting Runciman, says that "the concept of Christian War appears to be alien to the thought and personality of Jesus, and in fact, it was not looked upon favorably by the Greek Church."

===Commercial Rivalries with Constantinople and Subsequent Avarice===

Envy for the apparent wealth of the Greeks and perhaps the desire to share in some of the precious holy relics and treasure in the churches of the imperial capital was another motivation. The primary sources of the First Crusade speak of the awe the Crusaders felt when they first glanced at the Imperial City and the domes of [[Hagia Sophia (Constantinople)|Hagia Sophia]]; the feeling of inferiority is openly discerned as being at work in the Crusaders as a result. In both of the primary source accounts of Villehardouin and that of the Crusader knight Robert of Clari (4th Crusade), the impression of the Crusaders is recorded, that they were stunned by the unbelievable wealth and the treasure of the holy relics of Constantinople.

===Chronology of Aggressive Actions Between the West and Byzantium===
:* There were bitter memories of recent Byzantine attacks on Westerners (in Sicily; in West Greece in 1098; and in Antioch during the First Crusade).
:* 1149 The King of France Louis VII supported the suggestion that a European League should launch a new crusade against the emperor who was "Christian Only in Name." The capture of Constantinople should be the crusaders first objective. The Norman Roger of Sicily was in support of the idea, but his ally Pope Eugenius III was hesitant only because he feared the possible increase of Roger's power.
:* 1171 Emperor Manuel, having concluded alliances with Pisa and Genoa, decided to strike at Venice by arresting all Venetians in the Empire and confiscating all their ships and goods, symbolizing the degeneration of the Empire's relationship with the West and between Latins and Greeks in Constantinople.
:* 1183-85 During the reign of Emperor Andronicus I Comnenus, there was a great massacre of Italians in Constantinople, and all commerical concessions were withdrawn. Andronicus made many enemies and was eventually overthrown by riots in Constantinople.
:* 1185 Normans took Thessaloniki and subjected inhabitants to merciless treatment, partly for revenge of the massacre of Latins in 1183.
:* 1188 Emperor Isaac II agreed in 1188 to Sultan Saladin's request to build a new mosque (and not just use an existing one) in Constantinople. Its construction is mentioned by Pope Innocent III in a letter of 1210 to the Latin Patriarch of Constantinople, Tommaso Morosini. (''Patrologia Latina'', CCXVI, col. 354.)
:* 1189: The Third Crusade headed by German King Frederick Barbarossa, an enemy of Byzantium, was almost turned against Constantinople. The folly of Isaac I in imprisoning Frederick's ambassadors enraged the Crusaders. They occupied Philippopolis in Thrace, and Frederick wrote to his son Henry to send a fleet and attack the capital. He also wrote to the pope for his blessing, stating that it was necessary to eliminate the Empire if they were going to have any success in their enterprise against the Moslems. Negotiations by Isaac and a treaty averted the danger at that time.
:* 1191 Cyprus taken from Byzantines by English King Richard I "Lion Heart," who sold it in 1198 to Frankish Crusaders from previous Crusades that had been ousted from Jerusalem in 1187 when the Arabs retook it after 88 years.
:* 1197 Henry VI, son of Frederick Barbarossa, made no secret of his hatred of Byzantium and his ambitions to build a Mediterranean dominion. In 1197 a German expedition landed at Acre in Palestine; it was to be the forerunner of a greater army led by Henry himself. Pope Celestine III made no attempt to dissuade him, but he advised him not to attack Constantinople because he was negotiating with the emperor the ''Union of the Churches''. Henry's sudden death at 32 put an end to this German expedition.

==Diversion to Constantinople==
[[Image:Eugène Ferdinand Victor Delacroix 012.jpg|thumb|300px|''The Entry of the Crusaders into Constantinople'' ([[Eugène Delacroix]], 1840). The most infamous action of the Fourth Crusade was the sack of the Orthodox Christian capital city of [[Constantinople]]]]

[[w:Boniface I, Marquess of Montferrat|Boniface of Montferrat]] had left the fleet before it sailed from Venice, to visit his cousin [[w:Philip of Swabia|Philip of Swabia]]. The reasons for his visit are a matter of debate. He may have realized the Venetians' plans and left to avoid [[excommunication]], or he may have wanted to meet with the Byzantine prince [[w:Alexius IV Angelos|Alexius IV Angelus]], Philip's brother-in-law and the son of the recently deposed Byzantine emperor [[w:Isaac II Angelos|Isaac II Angelus]]. Young Alexius had fled to Philip when his father was overthrown in 1195, but it is unknown whether or not Boniface knew he was at Philip's court.

There, Alexius IV offered 200,000 silver marks, 10,000 men to help the Crusaders, the maintenance of 500 knights in the Holy Land, the service of the Byzantine navy to transport the Crusader Army to Egypt and the placement of the [[w:Greek Orthodox Church|Greek Orthodox Church]] under the [[Roman Catholic Church]] if they would sail to Byzantium and topple the reigning emperor Alexius III Angelus. It was a tempting offer for an enterprise that was short on funds. Greco-Latin relationships had been complicated ever since the [[Great Schism]] of 1054.

The Latins of the [[w:First Crusade|First]], [[w:Second Crusade|Second]], and [[w:Third Crusade|Third Crusades]] had been hostile to Constantinople on their way to the Holy Land, whereas the Greeks had been accused of betraying the Crusaders to the Turks. A large number of Venetian merchants were also attacked and deported during anti-Latin riots in Constantinople in 1182. However, the Byzantine prince's proposal involved his restoration to the throne, not the sack of his capital city, which Count Boniface agreed to. Alexius IV returned with the Marquess to rejoin the fleet at Corfu after it had sailed from Zara. The rest of the Crusade's leaders eventually accepted the plan as well. There were many leaders, however, of the rank and file who wanted nothing to do with the proposal, and many deserted. The fleet of 60 war galleys, 100 horse transports, and 50 large transports (the entire fleet was manned by 10,000 Venetian oarsmen and marines) arrived at Constantinople in late June 1203.<ref name="Phillips269">J. Phillips, ''The Fourth Crusade and the Sack of Constantinople'', 269</ref> In addition, 300 siege engines were brought along on board the fleet.<ref name="siege">J. Phillips, ''The Fourth Crusade and the Sack of Constantinople'', 113</ref>

When the Fourth Crusade arrived at Constantinople, the city had a population of 150,000 people, a garrison of 30,000 men, including 5,000 [[w:Varangians|Varangians]], and a fleet of 20 galleys.<ref name="byzantines">J. Phillips, ''The Fourth Crusade and the Sack of Constantinople'', 159</ref> The Crusaders' initial motive was to restore Isaac II to the Byzantine throne so that they could receive the support that they were promised. [[w:Conon de Béthune|Conon of Bethune]] delivered this message to the Lombard envoy who was sent by the reigning emperor [[w:Alexios III Angelos|Alexius III Angelus]], who had deposed his brother Isaac. The citizens of Constantinople were not concerned with the deposed emperor and his exiled son. Usurpations were frequent in Byzantine affairs, and this time the throne had even remained in the same family.

The Crusaders sailed alongside Constantinople with 10 galleys to display Alexius IV, but from the walls of the city the Byzantines taunted the puzzled crusaders, who had been promised that Prince Alexius would be welcomed.<ref name="taunt">J. Phillips, ''The Fourth Crusade and the Sack of Constantinople'', 164</ref> First the crusaders captured and sacked the cities of Chalcedon and Chrysopolis, then they defeated 500 Byzantine cavalrymen in battle with just 80 Frankish knights.<ref name="battle">J. Phillips, ''The Fourth Crusade and the Sack of Constantinople'', 162</ref>

===Siege of July 1203===
To take the city by force, the crusaders first needed to cross the Bosphorus. About 200 ships, horse transports and galleys would undertake to deliver the crusading army across the narrow strait, where Alexius III had lined up the Byzantine army in battle formation along the shore, north of the suburb of Galata. The Crusader's knights charged straight out of the horse transports, and the Byzantine army fled south.
[[Image:Constantinople Mural Fourth Crusade.jpg|thumb|left|300px|A mural depicting the Venetian Fleet entering the [[Golden Horn]] after breaking the chains that protected the city]]
The Crusaders followed south, and attacked the Tower of Galata, which held one end of the chain that blocked access to the Golden Horn. As they laid siege to the Tower, the Greeks counterattacked with some initial success. However, when the Crusaders rallied and the Greeks retreated to the Tower, the Crusaders were able to follow the soldiers through the Gate, and the Tower surrendered. The Golden Horn now lay open to the Crusaders, and the Venetian fleet entered.

On July 11, the Crusaders took positions opposite the Blachernae palace on the northwest corner of the city, and began the siege in earnest on July 17, with four divisions attacking the land walls, while the Venetian fleet attacked the sea walls from the Golden Horn. The Venetians took a section of the wall of about 25 towers, while the Varangian guard held off the Crusaders on the land wall. The Varangians shifted to meet the new threat, and the Venetians retreated under the screen of fire. The fire destroyed about 120 acres of the City.

Alexius III finally took offensive action, and led 17 divisions from the St. Romanus Gate, vastly outnumbering the crusaders. Alexius III's army of about 8,500 men faced the Crusader's 7 divisions (about 3,500 men), but his courage failed, and the Byzantine army returned to the city without a fight.<ref name="battle2">J. Phillips, ''The Fourth Crusade and the Sack of Constantinople'', 177</ref> The retreat and the effects of the fire greatly damaged morale, causing the citizens of Constantinople to turn against Alexius III, who then fled. The destructive fire left 20,000 people homeless.<ref name="fire">J. Phillips, ''The Fourth Crusade and the Sack of Constantinople'', 176</ref> Prince Alexius was elevated to the throne as Alexius IV along with his blind father Isaac.

===Further attacks on Constantinople===
Alexius IV realised that his promises were hard to keep. Alexius III had managed to flee with 1,000 pounds of gold and some priceless jewels, leaving the imperial treasury short on funds. At that point the young emperor ordered the destruction and melting of valuable Byzantine and Roman icons in order to extract their gold and silver, but even then he could only raise 100,000 silver marks. In the eyes of all Greeks who knew of this decision, it was a shocking sign of desperation and weak leadership, which deserved to be punished by God. The Byzantine historian Nicetas Choniates characterized it as "''the turning point towards the decline of the Roman state''".

Thus Alexius IV had to deal with the growing hatred by the citizens of Constantinople for the "Latins" and vice versa. In fear of his life, the co-emperor asked the Crusaders to renew their contract for another six months, to end by April 1204. There was, nevertheless, still fighting in the city. In August 1203 the crusaders attacked a mosque, which was defended by a combined Muslim and Greek opposition. Meanwhile, Alexius IV had led 6,000 men from the Crusader army against his rival Alexius V in Adrianople.<ref name = "exp"/>

On the second attempt of the Venetians to set up a wall of fire to aid their escape, they instigated the "Great Fire", in which a large part of Constantinople was burned down. Opposition to Alexius IV grew, and one of his courtiers, Alexius Ducas (nicknamed 'Murtzuphlos' because of his thick eyebrows), soon overthrew him and had him strangled to death. Alexius Ducas took the throne himself as [[w:Alexios V Doukas|Alexius V]]; Isaac died soon afterward, probably of natural causes.

The crusaders and Venetians, incensed at the murder of their supposed patron, demanded that Murtzuphlos honor the contract which Alexius IV had promised. When the Byzantine emperor refused the Crusaders assaulted the city once again. On April 8, Alexius V's army put up a strong resistance which did much to discourage the crusaders.

The Greeks pushed enormous projectiles onto the enemy siege engines, shattering many of them. A serious hindrance to the crusaders was bad weather conditions. Wind blew from the shore and prevented most of the ships from drawing close enough to the walls to launch an assault. Only five of the Greek towers were actually engaged and none of these could be secured; by mid-afternoon it was evident that the attack had failed.

The clergy discussed the situation amongst themselves and settled upon the message they wished to spread through the demoralized army. They had to convince the men that the events of [[April 9]] were not God's judgment on a sinful enterprise: the campaign, they argued, was righteous and with proper belief it would succeed. The concept of God testing the determination of the crusaders through temporary setbacks was a familiar means for the clergy to explain failure in the course of a campaign.

The clergy's message was designed to reassure and encourage the crusaders. Their argument that the attack on Constantinople was spiritual revolved around two themes. First, the Greeks were traitors and murderers since they had killed their rightful lord, Alexius IV. The churchmen used inflammatory language and claimed that "''the Greeks were worse than the Jews''", and they invoked the authority of God and the pope to take action.

Although Innocent III had again demanded that they not attack, the papal letter was suppressed by the clergy, and the crusaders prepared for their own attack, while the Venetians attacked from the sea. Alexius V's army stayed in the city to fight, along with the imperial bodyguard, the [[w:Varangians|Varangians]], but Alexius V himself fled during the night.

===Final capture of Constantinople===
On [[April 12]] 1204 the weather conditions finally favoured the Crusaders. A strong northern wind aided the Venetian ships to come close to the wall. After a short battle, approximately seventy crusaders managed to enter the city. Some Crusaders were eventually able to knock holes in the walls, small enough for a few knights at a time to crawl through; the Venetians were also successful at scaling the walls from the sea, though there was extremely bloody fighting with the [[w:Varangians#The Varangian Guard|Varangians]]. The crusaders captured the [[w:Blachernae|Blachernae]] section of the city in the northwest and used it as a base to attack the rest of the city, but while attempting to defend themselves with a wall of fire, they ended up burning down even more of the city. This second fire left 15,000 people homeless.<ref name="exp">J. Phillips, ''The Fourth Crusade and the Sack of Constantinople'', 209</ref>

The Crusaders took the city on [[April 12]]. The crusaders inflicted a horrible and savage sacking on Constantinople for three days, during which many ancient and medieval Roman and Greek works were either stolen or destroyed. The magnificent [[w:Library of Constantinople|Library of Constantinople]] was destroyed. Despite their oaths and the threat of excommunication, the Crusaders ruthlessly and systematically violated the city's holy sanctuaries, destroying, defiling, or stealing all they could lay hands on; nothing was spared. It was said that the total amount looted from Constantinople was about 900,000 silver marks. The Venetians received 150,000 silver marks that was their due, while the Crusaders received 50,000 silver marks. A further 100,000 silver marks were divided evenly up between the Crusaders and Venetians. The remaining 500,000 silver marks were secretly kept back by many Crusader knights.

Speros Vryonis in ''Byzantium and Europe'' gives a vivid account of the sack of Constantinople by the Frankish and Venetian Crusaders of the Fourth Crusade:

<blockquote>
The Latin soldiery subjected the greatest city in Europe to an indescribable sack. For three days they murdered, raped, looted and destroyed on a scale which even the ancient Vandals and Goths would have found unbelievable. Constantinople had become a veritable museum of ancient and Byzantine art, an emporium of such incredible wealth that the Latins were astounded at the riches they found. Though the Venetians had an appreciation for the art which they discovered (they were themselves semi-Byzantines) and saved much of it, the French and others destroyed indiscriminately, halting to refresh themselves with wine, violation of nuns, and murder of Orthodox clerics. The Crusaders vented their hatred for the Greeks most spectacularly in the desecration of the greatest Church in Christendom. They smashed the silver iconostasis, the icons and the holy books of [[Hagia Sophia (Constantinople)|Hagia Sophia]], and seated upon the patriarchal throne a whore who sang coarse songs as they drank wine from the Church's holy vessels. The estrangement of East and West, which had proceeded over the centuries, culminated in the horrible massacre that accompanied the conquest of Constantinople. The Greeks were convinced that even the Turks, had they taken the city, would not have been as cruel as the Latin Christians. The defeat of Byzantium, already in a state of decline, accelerated political degeneration so that the Byzantines eventually became an easy prey to the Turks. The Crusading movement thus resulted, ultimately, in the victory of Islam, a result which was of course the exact opposite of its original intention.<ref>Vryonis, Speros. ''Byzantium and Europe''. Harcourt, Brace & World, New York, 1967. pp.152</ref><ref>Philip Hughes. [http://www.ewtn.com/library/CHISTORY/HUGHHIST.TXT "History of the Church Vol II"], ''Innocent III & the Latin East''. Sheed & Ward, 1948. pp.372.</ref> </blockquote>.

According to Choniates, a prostitute was even set up on the Patriarchal throne.<ref>[http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/choniates1.html "The Sack of Constantinople"], Nicetas
Choniates, 1204.</ref> When Innocent III heard of the conduct of his pilgrims, he was filled with shame and strongly rebuked them.

According to a prearranged treaty, the empire was apportioned between Venice and the crusade's leaders, and the Latin Empire of Constantinople was established. Boniface was not elected as the new emperor, although the citizens seemed to consider him as such. The Venetians thought he had too many connections with the former empire because of his brother, [[w:Renier of Montferrat|Renier of Montferrat]], who had been married to [[w:Maria Komnene (Porphyrogenita)|Maria Comnena (Porphyrogenita)]], empress in the 1170s and 80s. Instead they placed [[w:Baldwin I of Constantinople|Baldwin of Flanders]] on the throne. Boniface went on to found the [[w:Kingdom of Thessalonica|Kingdom of Thessalonica]], a vassal state of the new Latin Empire. The Venetians also founded the [[w:Duchy of the Archipelago|Duchy of the Archipelago]] in the Aegean Sea.

Meanwhile, Byzantine refugees founded their own successor states, the most notable of these being the [[w:Empire of Nicaea|Empire of Nicaea]] under [[w:Theodore I Laskaris|Theodore Lascaris]] (a relative of Alexius III), the [[w:Empire of Trebizond|Empire of Trebizond]], and the [[w:Despotate of Epiros|Despotate of Epirus]].

Sir [[w:Edward Gibbon|Edward Gibbon]] stated that the spoils taken during one week in Constantinople equalled seven times the whole revenue of England at that time<ref>Treece, Henry. ''The Crusades''. London, 1962</ref>. The four magnificent bronze horses over the portals of San Marco's Basilica in Venice were snatched from the Byzantine hippodrome, standing monuments of one of the greatest acts of brigandage in history.

Its hard to exaggerate the harm done to European civilization by the sack of Constantinople. The treasures of the city, the books and works of art preserved from distant centuries, were all dispersed and most destroyed. The Empire, the great Eastern bulwark of Christendom, was broken as a power. The conquests of the Ottomans were made possible by the Crusaders' crime<ref>Runciman, Steven. ''Byzantine Civilization''. Cleveland World Publ. Co. 1965. pp.46</ref>.

A Roman Catholic patriarch was established and attempted to introduce Roman Catholicism by force. The new Venetian Patriarch in Constantinople, Tommaso Morosini, was appointed by the Doge of Venice, Enrico Dandolo (the main person who engineered the diversion of the Fourth Crusade); and according to Gibbon, the Venetians employed every art to perpetuate in their own nation the honors and benefices of the Greek church. Morosini appealed to the Pope for aid, and being unable to serve so many derisive masters, he died a madman. The new papal legate, Pelagius, rode into Constantinople dressed in scarlet from head to foot, like a Greek Emperor himself, and soon asserted that the easy days were over: Thenceforth the Greek clergy must adapt themselves in all religious rites and beliefs to those of the Church of Rome. He was prepared to wade through blood, he quickly showed, should the Orthodox Greeks deny any part of his assertion<ref>Treece, Henry. ''The Crusades''. London, 1962. pp.230-231</ref>.

[[Image:Greece_in_1214.JPG|right|thumb|Greece in 1214]]
After the ''[[w:Battle of the Olive Grove of Koundouros|Battle of the Olive Grove of Koundouros]],'' which took place in the spring of 1205, in Messinia, Peloponnese, between the Franks and the Greeks, all the castles and cities of the Peloponnese fell to the Franks. Meanwhile, the Venetians took possession of Crete in 1211, and retained it until ousted by the Ottoman Turks in 1669, a full 458 years later.

===Recovery===
In 1261 Emperor [[w:Michael VIII Palaiologos|Michael Palaeologus]] reconquered Constantinople for the Byzantines, and control of the city at last passed from the Venetians to the [[w:Palaiologos|Paleologus Dynasty]]. Emperor Michael VIII Palaeologus made the city of [[w:Mystras|Mystras]] in the Peloponnese the seat of the new [[w:Despotate of Morea|Despotate of Morea]], where a Byzantine Renaissance occured, which was to last until 1460.
[[Image:Greece_in_1278.JPG|right|thumb|Greece in 1278]]In September of 1259, the Byzantines defeated the Latin Principality of Achaea at the ''[[w:Battle of Pelagonia|Battle of Pelagonia]]'', marking the beginning of the Byzantine recovery of Greece.

==Papal Apology to Orthodox Church==
In May of 2001, Pope [[John Paul II]] visited Athens, Greece, the first visit of a pope in nearly 1300 years. Pope John Paul II and Archbishop [[Christodoulos (Paraskevaides) of Athens|Christodoulos]] met at the Aereopagus, where the [[Apostle Paul]] preached to Athenians 2000 years ago.

Pope John Paul II stated: "''For occasions past and present when the sons and daughters of the Catholic Church have sinned by actions and omission against their Orthodox brothers and sisters, may the Lord grant us the forgiveness we beg of Him.''" Many Orthodox regard this as a "political" apology for the sacking of Constantinople in 1204, as well as for other issues, but it was clearly not in any way or form a religious or doctrinal apology on the part of the Roman Catholic Church.

In April 2004, in a speech on the 800th anniversary of the city's capture, Ecumenical Patriarch [[Bartholomew I (Archontonis) of Constantinople|Bartholomew I]] formally accepted the apology. "''The spirit of reconciliation is stronger than hatred,''" he said during a liturgy attended by Roman Catholic Archbishop Philippe Barbarin of Lyon, France. "''We receive with gratitude and respect your cordial gesture for the tragic events of the Fourth Crusade. It is a fact that a crime was committed here in the city 800 years ago.''" Bartholomew said his acceptance came in the spirit of Pascha. "''The spirit of reconciliation of the resurrection... incites us toward reconciliation of our churches.''"<ref>[http://www.incommunion.org/articles/issue-33/news-issue-33 ''Patriarch accepts Pope’s Apology.''] '' '''In Communion: Website of Orthodox Peace Fellowship''' '', News - Issue 33.</ref>

==Further reading==
*[[Wikipedia:Fourth Crusade]]
* [http://aggreen.net/church_history/1204_sack.html The Sack of Constantinople] - by Nicholas A. Cooke
* ''The Cambridge Medieval History: Vol. IV-The Byzantine Empire: Part 1-Byzantium and Its Neighbours''.

==References==
<div class="small"><references/></div>

==Sources==
* Riley-Smith, Jonathan. ''The Crusades: A Short History''. Great Britian, 1987.
* Vryonis, Speros. ''Byzantium and Europe''. Harcourt, Brace & World, New York, c1967.
* Runciman, Steven. ''Byzantine Civilization''. Cleveland World Publ. Co. 1965.
* Treece, Henry. ''The Crusades''. London, 1962.
* Miller, William. ''The Latins in the Levant: A History of Frankish Greece 1204-1566''. Cambridge, Speculum Historiale, 1908.
* Atiya, Aziz A. ''Crusade, Commerce and Culture''. Indiana University Press, 1962.
* Hussey, J.M. ''The Impact of East and West 1204-1453: Latin Treachery and Byzantine Diplomacy 1204-1261'', In '''''The Byzantine World''''', 1961.
* Ostrogorsky, George. ''The Byzantine State''. Transl. Joan Hussey. Rutgers, 1969.
* Schmandt, Raymond. ''The Fourth Crusade and the Just War Theory''. (article).
* Gregoire, Henri. ''The Question of the Diversion of the Fourth Crusade''. (article).
* Morris, Colin. ''Geoffrey De Villehardouin and the Conquest of Constantinople''. (article).
* Folda, J. "''The Fourth Crusade 1201-1203: Some Reconsiderations''." in Byzantino-Slavica 26(1965),pp.227-290.
* Hughes, Philip. [http://www.ewtn.com/library/CHISTORY/HUGHHIST.TXT "A History of the Church Vol II"]. Sheed & Ward, 1948.
* [http://www.incommunion.org/articles/issue-33/news-issue-33 ''Patriarch accepts Pope’s Apology.''] '' '''In Communion: Website of Orthodox Peace Fellowship''' '', News - Issue 33.

===Primary Sources===
* Joinville and Villehardouin. ''Chronicles of the Crusades''. Transl, M.R.B. Shaw. Penguin Books, 1963.
* Odo of Deuill. ''De Profectione Ludovici VII in Orientem (The Journey of Louis VII to the East).'' Transl Virginia Gingerick Berry. New York, 1948.
* Niketas Choniates. ''O City of Byzantium, Annals of Niketas Choniates''. Detroit 1984.
* Robert de Clari. ''The Conquest of Constantinople''. Transl. Edgar Holmes McNeal, University of Toronto Press, 1996.
* ''The Chronicle of Morea : a history in political verse, relating to the establishment of feudalism in Greece by the Franks in the thirteenth century''. Ed. John Schmitt (1856-1906). Groningen : Bouma's Bockhuis, 1967

[[Category:Church History]]

Filioque

2010-07-07T21:23:25Z

CircularReason: added reference to Hussey

'''''Filioque''''' is a Latin word meaning "and the Son" which was added to the [[Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed]] by the [[Church of Rome]] in the 11th century, one of the major factors leading to the [[Great Schism]] between East and West. This inclusion in the Creedal article regarding the [[Holy Spirit]] thus states that the Spirit "proceeds from the Father '''''and the Son'''''."

Its inclusion in the Creed is a violation of the [[canons]] of the [[Third Ecumenical Council]] in 431, which forbade and [[anathema]]tized any additions to the Creed, a prohibition which was reiterated at the [[Eighth Ecumenical Council]] in 879-880. This word was not included by the [[First Ecumenical Council|Council of Nicea]] nor of [[Second Ecumenical Council|Constantinople]]. The term itself has been interpreted in both an Orthodox fashion and a heterodox fashion. It may be read as saying that the Spirit proceeds from the Father through (''dia'') the Son. This was the position of St [[Maximus the Confessor]]. On this reading, the Son is not an eternal cause (''aition'') of the Spirit. The heterodox reading sees the Son, along with the Father, as an eternal cause of the Spirit. Most in the [[Orthodox Church]] consider this latter reading to be a [[heresy]].

The description of the ''filioque'' as a heresy was iterated most clearly and definitively by the great [[Church Fathers|Father]] and [[Pillars of Orthodoxy|Pillar]] of the Church, St. [[Photius the Great]], in his ''On the Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit''. He describes it as a heresy of [[Triadology]], striking at the very heart of what the Church believes about God.

== History ==
===Early use of the ''Filioque''===
It is useful to note that a regional council in Persia in 410 introduced one of the earliest forms of the ''filioque'' in the Creed; the council specified that the Spirit proceeds from the Father "and from the Son." Coming from the rich theology of early East Syrian Christianity, this expression in this context is authentically Eastern. Therefore, the ''filioque'' cannot be attacked as a solely Western innovation, nor as something created by the Pope.

In the West, St. [[Augustine of Hippo]] taught that the Spirit came from the Father ''and'' the Son, though subordinate to neither. His theology was dominant in the West until the Middle Ages, including his [[Triadology|theology of the Trinity]]. Other Latin fathers also spoke of the Spirit proceeding from both the Father and the Son. While familiar in the West, this way of speaking was virtually unknown in the Greek-speaking, Eastern Roman Empire.

Although the [[Second Ecumenical Council]] in 381 had expanded and completed the [[Nicene Creed]] begun at the [[First Ecumenical Council]], the [[Third Ecumenical Council]] (Ephesus, 431) had forbidden any further changes to it, except for by another [[Ecumenical Council]]. By this time, then, the text of the [[Nicene Creed]] had acquired a certain definitive authority, of ecumenical value and importance.

Rome received the [[Fourth Ecumenical Council]], which referred to preceding councils, citing the authority of the text of the Creed. However, at this time, central Italy was in a state of collapse. In 410 and 455, Rome was vandalized and sacked by barbarian invasions. In 476, the Western Roman Empire fell, with the exile of Romulus Augustulus, the last emperor. Chaos followed.

The ''filioque'' was first used in Toledo, Spain in 587 without the consultation or agreement of the [[Pentarchy|five patriarchs]] of the [[Church]] at that time and in direct violation of [[canons]] of the [[Third Ecumenical Council]] that prohibited unilateral alteration of the Creed by anything short of another [[Ecumenical Council]]. The purpose of its addition in Spain was to counter a [[heresy]] that was local to that region, probably some form of [[Arianism]] brought there by the Goths (who had been missionized by the Arian bishop [[Wulfila]]). The practice spread then to France where it was repudiated at the Gentilly Council in 767.

After generations of social upheaval, strong leadership appeared in the person of Pepin the Short, king of the Franks, and his son, [[Charlemagne]], crowned as emperor in 800. Charlemagne intended to restore the Roman Empire in the West, with himself in charge, to the chagrin of the leaders of the Eastern Roman Empire, whom he referred to as "Greeks" (and thus not Romans), despite the Roman capital being in the East and the continued use by Easterners of ''Roman'' to describe themselves. Charlemagne called for a council at Aix-la-Chapelle in 809 at which Pope [[Leo III of Rome|Leo III]] forbade the use of the ''filioque'' clause and ordered that the original version of the [[Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed]] be engraved on silver tablets displayed at St. Peter's Basilica in Rome so that his conclusion would not be overturned in the future.

Some historians have suggested that the Franks in the 9th century pressured the Pope to adopt the ''filioque'' in order to drive a wedge between the Roman Church and the other patriarchates. It is true that the ''filioque'' had come into wide use in the West and was widely thought to be an integral part of the Creed, while Rome, renowned for its stability in Orthodoxy, resisted. Similarly, unleavened bread had come to be thought of as normative for the [[Eucharist]]; diocesan priests were expected to be unmarried. In such cases, in the West, ancient tradition was forgotten. Contemporary usage was thought to be normative and authentic. In these matters of discipline, the influence of the Franks is certain. They intended to exalt Charlemagne, as the new Roman Emperor. The Catholic religion, as they knew it, was to be part of the package. Meanwhile, from ca. 726 to 843, the Eastern Roman Empire, under the thumb of successive emperors, was dominated by the heresy of [[iconoclasm]]. Both Franks and Greeks, in their own way, departed from ancient tradition. Unlike the East, however, where iconoclasm was repudiated at the [[Seventh Ecumenical Council]] and the use of icons later confirmed by the [[Theodora (9th century empress)|Empress Theodora]], the West to date never recovered from its departure.

===The "Photian" Schism===
Within a couple of generations, in 858, a new situation came to pass. The Eastern Emperor Michael III removed [[Ignatius of Constantinople|Ignatius I]] as patriarch of Constantinople. The emperor replaced him with a layman, St. [[Photius the Great]], who was the first Imperial Secretary and Imperial Ambassador to Baghdad. However, Ignatius refused to abdicate. Michael and Photius invited Pope [[Nicholas I of Rome]] to send legates to preside over a synod in Constantinople to settle the matter. With the council, the legates confirmed the patriarchate of Photius, much to Nicholas's chagrin, who then declared that they had "exceeded their authority."

In opposition to this removal of Ignatius, the bishop of Rome supported Ignatius as legitimate patriarch. Moreover, contrary to existing canons, Photius had been ordained to the office of bishop very quickly. Some scholarship (who?) suggests that violation of these canons was the main reason the bishop of Rome rejected the appointment of Photius. J. M. Hussey argues that the pope also wanted to regain ecclesiastic control of Bulgaria, a program in which Ignatius would not interfere, though Photius would (and did) (Hussey The Orthodox Church in the Byzantine Empire Oxford History of the Christian Church 1986). This and other major actions by Nicholas to bolster his position as pope puts his intervention in Eastern ecclesiastical matters more firmly in the context of his general programme of the growth of papal monarchy.

Therefore, after the arrival of an embassy from Ignatius, in 862, Nicholas said that Photius was deposed, as well as the bishop who ordained him and all the clergy Photius had appointed. The sheer temerity of this action did not even generate a response from Constantinople. However, several years later in 867, Photius finally rejected the Pope's assertion, particularly because of the activities of Latin missionaries in Bulgaria, who were, as St. Photius says, turning the Orthodox Christians there away from their pure Orthodox faith and leading them into [[heresy]]—most notably, the ''filioque''. Photius' response cited the ''filioque'' as proof that Rome had a habit of overstepping its proper limits.

In 867 and 869-70, synods in Rome and Constantinople (the [[Robber Council of 869-870]]) restored Ignatius to his position as patriarch and deposed Photius. In 877, after the death of Ignatius, Photius again resumed office, by order of the emperor and by the request of Ignatius himself, to whom Photius had been reconciled. In 879-880, he was officially restored to his see and the ''filioque'' effectively condemned by the [[Eighth Ecumenical Council]], a council at which papal legates participated and which the current pope, [[John VIII of Rome|John VIII]], eventually confirmed. He was deposed in 886 when Leo VI took over as emperor, who had had a dispute with his father and turned his animosity for his father toward one of his father's friends, Photius. Photius spent the rest of his life as a monk in exile in Armenia; he is revered by the Orthodox today as a [[saint]], one of the great [[Pillars of Orthodoxy]]. He was the first important [[theologian]] to accuse Rome of [[heresy]] in the matter of the ''filioque''.

===Rome capitulates to Filioquist pressure===
In the ninth century, Pope [[Leo III of Rome]] agreed with the ''filioque'' phrase theologically but was opposed to adopting it in Rome, in part because of his loyalty to the received [[tradition]]. (He also knew that the Greeks resented the new Roman Empire in the West and Charlemagne in particular; the Pope wanted to preserve Church unity.) In fact, Leo had the traditional text of the Creed, without the ''filioque'', displayed publicly, having the original text engraved on two silver tablets, at the tomb of St. [[Apostle Peter|Peter]]. In any case, during the time of Pope Leo's leadership, 795-816, there was no Creed at all in the Roman Mass.

Later, in 1014, the German Emperor Henry II of the Holy Roman Empire visited Rome for his coronation and found that the Creed was not used during the Mass. At his request, the bishop of Rome added the Creed, as it was known in the West with the ''filioque'', after the Gospel. At this time, the papacy was very weak and very much under the influence of the Germans. For the sake of survival, the Pope needed the military support of the Emperor. This was the first time the phrase was used in the [[Mass]] at Rome.

Thus, over nearly six centuries, dispute over the ''filioque'' had not divided the Church definitively; for the most part, in spite of cultural and linguistic conflicts, the Eastern and Western Churches remained in [[full communion]].

In 1054, however, the argument contributed to the [[Great Schism]] of the East and West, and the West went so far as to accuse the East of heresy for not including the ''filioque'' in the Creed. There were many other issues involved, in large part based on misunderstandings between Greek and Latin traditions, as well as the irascible temperament of the antagonists. These were Cardinal [[Humbert]] from Rome and Patriarch [[Michael I Cerularius of Constantinople|Michael Cerularius]] of Constantinople. In addition to the actual difference in wording and doctrine in the ''filioque'', a related issue was the right of the Pope to make a change in the [[Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed]] on his own, apart from an [[Ecumenical Council]].

===Attempted reunions and the ''Filioque'' after the Schism===
In the thirteenth century, Thomas Aquinas was one of the dominant Scholastic theologians. He dealt explicitly with the processions of the divine Persons in his ''Summa Theologica''. While the theology of Aquinas and other Scholastics was dominant in the Western Middle Ages, for all its apparent clarity and brilliance, it remains theology, not official [[Roman Catholic Church]] teaching.

In 1274, the Second [[Council of Lyons]] said that the [[Holy Spirit]] proceeds from the [[God the Father|Father]] and the [[Christ|Son]], in accord with the ''filioque'' in the contemporary Latin version of the [[Nicene Creed]]. Reconciliation with the East, through this council, did not last. Remembering the Crusaders' sack of Constantinople in 1204, Orthodox Christians did not want to be reconciled with the West in terms of capitulation to Latin [[Triadology]] and [[ecclesiology]]. In 1283, Patriarch [[John Beccus]], who supported reconciliation with the Latin Church, was forced to abdicate; reunion failed.

The Crusaders in question were the Venetians of the [[Fourth Crusade]], who had earlier been excommunicated for attacking other Christians. In 1204, they were getting even for a slaughter of Venetian merchants, in rioting, that took place in 1182. Pope Innocent III had sent them a letter, asking them not to attack Constantinople; after hearing of the sack of the city, he lamented their action and disowned them. Nevertheless, the people of Constantinople had a deep hatred for the people they called the "Latins" or the "Franks," and of course the Western church's major "endowment" from the spoils carried away now still largely rests in the hands of the Vatican.

For much of the 14th century, there were two bishops, each claiming to be Pope, each excommunicating the followers of the other. The Great Western Schism concluded with yet a third individual claiming to be Pope and the Council of Constance. The East could hardly seek reconciliation with a Western Church divided among itself. (In the middle of the century, about a third of Western Europe died of the Black Death. People were more concerned about the plague than about Church unity.)

At the [[Council of Florence]] in 1439, Emperor [[John VIII Palaeologus]], Patriarch Joseph of Constantinople, and other bishops from the East travelled to northern Italy in hope of reconciliation with the West, mainly in order to solicit military assistance to fend off the encroaching Turkish invaders. After extensive discussion, in Ferrara, then in Florence, they acknowledged that some Latin Fathers spoke of the procession of the Spirit differently from the Greek Fathers. Since the general consensus of the Fathers was held to be reliable, as a witness to common faith, the Western usage was held not to be a heresy and not a barrier to restoration of full communion. All but one of the Orthodox bishops present agreed and signed a decree of union between East and West, ''Laetentur Coeli'' in 1439. The one bishop who refused to sign and was later heralded as a Pillar of Orthodoxy by the Church was St. [[Mark of Ephesus]], who followed in the footsteps of the previous Pillar of Orthodoxy, St. [[Photius the Great]].

Officially and publicly, Rome and the Orthodox Church were back in communion. However, the reconciliation achieved at Florence was soon destroyed, founded as it was on a compromise of faith. Numerous Orthodox faithful and bishops rejected the union. Moreover, after the Turks [[Fall of Constantinople|conquered Constantinople in 1453]], they fostered separation from the West, which remained an adversary to Islamic political and military dominance. Furthermore, the patriarch, Gennadius, was also one of the bishops who had repudiated the reunion of Florence on his own initiative.

Finally, the theology of rationalistic Western Scholasticism predominated among the Latin theologians and bishops and so obscured the biblical, patristic perspective long advocated by the East, in which the Spirit is said to proceed "from the Father" (as in [[Gospel of John|John]] 15:26) or, more rarely, "from the Father ''through'' the Son" (as in some of the Fathers). The Eastern bishops had not imbibed the rationalist intellectualism of the West, and so were unconvinced by the highly abstract and convoluted arguments of the Scholastics. Hence, the agreement of Florence, intellectually, represented in many respects an imposition of Scholastic theology.

Undeniably, the ''filioque'' controversy was at least officially resolved, for both Orthodox and Catholic. However, because of the historical situation and because of the different ecclesiologies of the East and West—in the East, the whole Church is seen as the guardian of faith, while for the West, the Magisterium maintains the faith—this resolution was neither fully received nor permanently sustained.

Though there had been a reunion [[Divine Liturgy|liturgy]] held in December of 1452 at [[Hagia Sophia (Constantinople)|Hagia Sophia]] in Constantinople at which the Pope's name was commemorated and the ''filioque'' used in the Creed, that had been largely boycotted by most of the clergy and laity in the city. On the evening of [[May 28]], 1453, however, another liturgy was held which also commemorated the Pope and used the ''filioque'', but which was not boycotted by the majority of the city. The next day, Constantinople fell to the Muslim invaders.

===Recent discussions and statements===
Dialogue on this and other subjects is continuing. The ''filioque'' clause was the main subject discussed at the 62nd meeting of the [[North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation]], which met at [[Holy Cross Greek Orthodox School of Theology (Brookline, Massachusetts)]] from [[June 3]] through [[June 5]], 2002, for their spring session. As a result of these modern discussions, it has been suggested that the Orthodox could accept an "economic" ''filioque'' that states that the Holy Spirit, who originates in the Father alone, was sent to the Church "through the Son" (as the [[Paraclete]]), but this is not official Orthodox doctrine. It is what the Fathers call a ''[[theologoumenon]]'', a theological opinion. (Similarly, the late Edward Kilmartin, S.J., proposed as a ''theologoumenon'' a "mission" of the Holy Spirit to the Church.)

Recently, an important, agreed statement has been made by the North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation, on [[October 25]], 2003. This document ''The Filioque: A Church-Dividing Issue?'', provides an extensive review of [[Scripture]], history, and [[theology]]. Especially critical are the recommendations of this consultation, for example:

#That all involved in such dialogue expressly recognize the limitations of our ability to make definitive assertions about the inner life of God.
#That, in the future, because of the progress in mutual understanding that has come about in recent decades, Orthodox and Catholics refrain from labeling as heretical the traditions of the other side on the subject of the procession of the Holy Spirit.
#That Orthodox and Catholic theologians distinguish more clearly between the divinity and hypostatic identity of the Holy Spirit (which is a received [[dogma]] of our Churches) and the manner of the Spirit's origin, which still awaits full and final ecumenical resolution.
#That those engaged in dialogue on this issue distinguish, as far as possible, the theological issues of the origin of the Holy Spirit from the ecclesiological issues of primacy and doctrinal authority in the Church, even as we pursue both questions seriously, together.
#That the theological dialogue between our Churches also give careful consideration to the status of later councils held in both our Churches after those seven generally received as ecumenical.
#That the Catholic Church, as a consequence of the normative and irrevocable dogmatic value of the Creed of 381, use the original Greek text alone in making translations of that Creed for catechetical and liturgical use.
#That the Catholic Church, following a growing theological consensus, and in particular the statements made by Pope Paul VI, declare that the condemnation made at the Second Council of Lyons (1274) of those "who presume to deny that the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son" is no longer applicable.

In the judgment of the consultation, the question of the ''filioque'' is no longer a "Church-dividing" issue, one which would impede full reconciliation and full communion, once again. It still stands for the bishops and faithful of the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches to review this work and to make whatever decisions would be appropriate.

==The ''Filioque'' as heresy==
There has never been a specific conciliar statement in the [[Orthodox Church]] which defined the ''filioque'' as [[heresy]]. That being said, however, it has been regarded as heretical by multiple Orthodox saints, including Ss. [[Photius the Great]], [[Mark of Ephesus]], and [[Gregory Palamas]] (the three Pillars of Orthodoxy). At the [[Third Ecumenical Council]] and the [[Eighth Ecumenical Council|"Photian" council of 879-880]] (both councils Rome signed onto), all changes to the Creed are anathematized. Further, it is explicitly denounced as heretical by the 1848 ''[[Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs]]''.

There are a number of reasons traditionally cited for the definition of the ''filioque'' as heretical, including the following:

===Objections on doctrinal grounds===
*It is contrary to Scripture, particularly in [[Gospel of John|John]] 15:26: "But when the Helper comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify of Me." Thus, Christ never describes the Holy Spirit as proceeding from himself, but only mentions the Spirit's procession in terms of the Father.

*The justifications for including the ''filioque'' in the Creed—bolstering the divinity of the Son and emphasizing the unity of the Trinity—are redundant, given the original wording of the Creed. That is, the Son already is described as "light of light, very God of very God," and so forth. The Spirit also "with the Father and Son together is worshiped and glorified." Additionally, the Creed itself begins with a statement of belief in "one God."

*The ''filioque'' distorts Orthodox [[Triadology]] by making the Spirit a subordinate member of the Trinity. Traditional Triadology consists in the notion that for any given trait, it must be either common to all Persons of the Trinity or unique to one of them. Thus, Fatherhood is unique to the Father, while begottenness is unique to the Son, and procession unique to the Spirit. Godhood, however, is common to all, as is eternality, uncreatedness, and so forth. Positing that something can be shared by two Persons (i.e., being the source of the Spirit's procession) but not the other is to elevate those two Persons at the expense of the other. Thus, the balance of unity and diversity is destroyed.

*Given the previous objection, the repercussions to the acceptance of the ''filioque'' into church life are potentially massive. Because how we relate to God is significantly affected by what we believe about him, false beliefs lead to damaging spirituality. One objection often raised about Filioquist theology is that it undermines the role of the Holy Spirit in the Church. Thus, with his role being denigrated, his traditional ministries are effaced or replaced. The Church's unity becomes dependent on an office, spirituality becomes adherence to the letter of the law rather than its spirit, sacraments come to be understood in terms of validity, and a spirit of legalism prevails.

===Objections on canonical and historical grounds===
*Though not really a question of heresy, a common objection is to the means of inserting the ''filioque'' into the Creed. That is, unlike the original adoption of the Creed at [[First Ecumenical Council|Nicea]] and its subsequent revision at [[Second Ecumenical Council|Constantinople]], the decision to include the ''filioque'' in the Creed was not done by an [[Ecumenical Council]]. Rather, it was initially inserted by the Third Synod of Toledo, Spain (589).

*Rome resisted the inclusion of the ''filioque'' for centuries. Leo III, the Pope of Rome at the time the ''filioque'' began its history in Western theology, strongly advised against its inclusion, even though he agreed with the soundness and validity of the doctrine contained in ''filioque''. Later, however, Rome contradicted its previous more Orthodox stance by the promulgation of the ''filioque'', thus anathematizing its own spiritual forebears.

==External links==
*[[Wikipedia:Filioque External Links: an Online Bibliography]]
*[http://www.geocities.com/trvalentine/orthodox/filioque.html Filioque Page], by Thomas Ross Valentine
*[http://www.romanity.org/htm/rom.17.en.the_filioque_in_the_dublin_agreed_statement_1984.01.htm The Filioque in the Dublin Agreed Statement 1984], by Fr. [[John S. Romanides]]
*[http://agrino.org/cyberdesert/Pelikan.htm The Filioque], by Prof. [[Jaroslav Pelikan]]
*[http://agrino.org/cyberdesert/meyendorf.htm On the Question of the Filioque], by Fr. [[John Meyendorff]]
*[http://agrino.org/cyberdesert/zizioulas.htm One Single Source], by Metr. [[John Zizioulas]]
*[http://www.energeticprocession.com/archives/Azkoul_filioque.pdf The Filioque: A Reply to the Agreed Statement of the North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation], by Fr. Michael Azkoul

[[Category:Church History]]
[[Category:Councils]]
[[Category:Creeds]]
[[Category:Ecumenical Councils]]
[[Category:Featured Articles]]
[[Category:Heresies]]

[[ro:Filioque]]

User talk:ASDamick

2010-06-18T20:23:41Z

CircularReason: What is Orthodoxwiki

<div class="boilerplate" id="stub" style="margin: 0 auto; text-align: center; background: #EEEEEE; padding: 0 10px; border: 1px solid #CCC; width: 60%; align: center">'''Fr. Andrew''' is currently reserving the right to make his wiki-contributions extremely sporadic.</div>

* [[/Archive 1|Archive 1]] (Dec. 18, 2004 - June 17, 2005)
* [[/Archive 2|Archive 2]] (July 5, 2005 - Dec. 15, 2005)
* [[/Archive 3|Archive 3]] (Dec. 23, 2005 - Aug. 2, 2006)
* [[/Archive 4|Archive 4]] (Aug. 10, 2006 - May 29, 2008)

----

== "Church" v. "church" ==

I understand "the Church" v. "a church" when it comes to a parish. However, I thought that one could also have "a Church" meaning an entity such as the [[Church of Russia]]. Currently, that article (Jursidiction section) mentions: "This includes these self-governing Churches:" Is this wrong? (I would appreciate it if you would add some clarification to the [[OrthodoxWiki:Style_Manual#Capitalization|Style Manual]] on this so I can refer back to it.) Thank you. —[[User:Magda|magda]] ([[User_talk:Magda|talk]]) 15:05, June 2, 2008 (UTC)

==Vandalism 10June08==
Figured just after I did it... :/ ...Wonder if there's a way to have a setting where all of an editors edits can just be mass-reverted? — by [[User:Pistevo|Pιsτévο]] ''[[User talk:Pistevo|talk]]'' ''[[User talk:Pistevo/dev/null|complaints]]'' at 11:56, June 10, 2008 (UTC)

* Thank you very much, Fr. Andrew. It's just my duty.--''[[User:Θεοδωρος|Θεόδωρος]]'' 12:02, June 10, 2008 (UTC)

I've noticed you are able to delete particular edits from the revision history. I think [[Pope Saint Dioscorus I of Alexandria (Coptic POV)]] still needs help (or just to be transferred to OrthodoxSource and deleted here), but I'd like to know how to delete selected edits, and what the "undo" button does ... without harming an actual article. —[[User:Magda|magda]] ([[User_talk:Magda|talk]]) 19:47, June 11, 2008 (UTC)

:Thank you. I hadn't even noticed the (show/hide) link until you pointed it out. —[[User:Magda|magda]] ([[User_talk:Magda|talk]]) 22:15, June 11, 2008 (UTC)

::Hmm. Poking it doesn't seem to work in this case. I can rollback to the previous edit, or I can undo, but each option seems to deal with single edits, when I want to go back several edits. I have tried several times to copy and paste from an [http://orthodoxwiki.org/index.php?title=Pope_Saint_Dioscorus_I_of_Alexandria_(Coptic_POV)&oldid=60734 older edit], but I think that there may be too much data. I feel uncomfortable transferring this article to OrthodoxSource, because I don't know whether we have the right to use most of the material from this article (most of it seems to be from [http://www.coptichymns.net/module-library-viewpub-tid-1-pid-384.html this article]). In any case, if you can get the article restored (I give up), I think it needs a significant amount of cleanup. —[[User:Magda|magda]] ([[User_talk:Magda|talk]]) 22:52, June 11, 2008 (UTC)

== Help on Code ==

Hi, I have looked through the various Help Files but there doesnt seem to be one that teaches you (or define) how to use the parameters (and what these are) for code. I have been working on putting a {{ }} together but I want to collapse my table. Do you know of a reference I cna read to educate myself on this code? and what will work on OrthodoxWiki? [[User:Ixthis888|Vasiliki]] 02:58, June 12, 2008 (UTC)

:Do you know if the {{#if:}} are supposed to work on OrthodoxWiki? They work on Wikipedia -- [[User:Ixthis888|Vasiliki]]

== Recruitment of "expert" ==

Hi, I wanted to ask you to help me ... I am hoping that at this point in time, the number of people who go to OrthodoxSource is limited to ...two, three at the max ...because it will get crazy before a nice sensible 'framework' is put in place ... anyway, can you pop over to Orthodox Source for a moment ... and take a look at what I have started to do and please dont freak out ... I am pretty computer savvy .. the only problem is I am having difficulty with the #if code ... which is messing up the format for this template [http://www.orthodoxsource.org/Template:Author ''Development of Template for "Author" definitions"''] which is a key template to get this site up and running. Keep it quiet that I am working on that site because otherwise too many people will start sticky beaking into it and modifying things without the framework finishing ... -- [[User:Ixthis888|Vasiliki]]

So, who should I recruit??? See, my development so far ... I want someone to work with! Any ideas? [[User:Ixthis888|Vasiliki]]

== take a look .... ==

http://orthodoxsource.org/Author:Raphael_Hawaweeny

==Existing structure==
Thanks on the revert on my addition to the "graduates". I like to follow the existing structure a best I can. A few times I've noted what appears to be more than one path, usually over using similar titles for articles and categories that I think adds confusion in navigating. At this time I can't remember my "examples!" Multiple paths may be necessary sometime, but my intent is to work within the present structure and keep the structure simple to follow. [[User:Wsk|Wsk]] 14:09, June 18, 2008 (UTC)

==PSCA==
PSCA = "Provisional Supreme Church Authority [of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad]", aka the "Agathangelites" -- the latest schismatic jurisdiction to emerge in Ukraine. I'll get a brief article about them up. {{unsigned|Aleks}}

==Stuff==
1. I am not trying to live in '''"bubble" world''' where only I can edit and only I can do as I please ... so, please dont go inferring that I should "bugger off" and start my own wiki if that is what I want ...

2. I am not upset because you deleted the DVD articles, or Category links (because I make OW mistakes) I never said that so please dont infer that. I am/was upset with the overall revert you made to the OrthodoxSource Main Page. That was a significant (rv) and I just would have liked the opportunity to have been treated like an equal in that case - drop me a conversational note giving me a warning that you intend to do it. That was what upset me, ''''the fact you didnt think I was worth discussing it in the first place'''

3. I tend to get defensive with you because from Day One you have been pretty abrupt with me on just about every occassion ... so that pattern has made me feel like '''you dont think I am worth discussing with in the first place''' - even if you do talk to me ... it has been talking "down" on occassions, little comments in the past "highlighting" my weaknesses have made me feel inferior ... and have made me feel that everyone has a superior grasp of "English", I dont ... so ... I do note, that you are so willing to be "patient" with me; Wow, how awesome that you can exhibit ''patience'' with me? how good does that make me feel?

It doesnt matter. The point is, I dont seem to do it right in here. So, goodbye from today. I wont contribute to OW anymore if you all think that my contributions lack 'quality", what is the point of wasting my time and yours? - [[User:Ixthis888|Vasiliki]] 04:52, June 19, 2008 (UTC)

: See my response on your [[User talk:Ixthis888|talk page]]. —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 05:00, June 19, 2008 (UTC)

== My Apology and request for Help ==

I want to apologise for coming across (in written text) as such a cry baby ... I guarantee you I get frustrated that I can not explain myself simply and quickly and appropriately and I know you are a cool priest but I do get upset on big ticket items because all i want is the opportunity to discuss ... In any case, accept my apologies for going all huffy yesterday. I still stand by the fact I will not contribute to OW any longer since I feel that I am a nuisance rather than a help. However, in OS I really do want to contribute to developing the framework/skeleton (ie. Set up all the codes and the worksheets) that can then be "filled" with the revelant Bibliographical lists by others (or even me). To do that, I really need someone to talk with over in the OS wiki. At the moment, I want to discuss a framework for Liturgical Texts (BEFORE) I go ahead and set up the entire code/framework .... Can you help me? [http://www.orthodoxsource.org/OrthodoxSource:Discussion DESIGN of Liturgical Text Portal] - [[User:Ixthis888|Vasiliki]] 00:35, June 20, 2008 (UTC)

== Estonian "Issue" ==

Father:

Evlogeite!

Regarding your comments about the Estonian Church. You write:
"The reason for the difference in naming is that the EP's Estonian church is not regarded by the EP as a constituent part—rather, the EP regards the Estonian church as autonomous, having the same status as Finland, Sinai, etc. The MP, however, regards its Estonian church as being essentially an integral part of the MP, in contrast with the Church of Ukraine, which it regards as autonomous. Thus, the distinction."

Please explain to me, what the difference in status is between the Ukrainian and Estonian Churches (MP). It seems to me that both have the same status within the MP. The Primate of the Ukrainian Church is confirmed by the Moscow Patriarch; so is the Primate of the Estonian Church (MP). Hierarchs of the Ukrainian Church serve in the Council and Synod of the Russian Church; so do hierarchs of the Estonian Church (MP). In fact, the Metropolitan of Kiev is an ex officio permanent member of the Holy Synod in Moscow. The Ukrainian Church receives its chrism from the Moscow Patriarch; so does the Estonian Church (MP). The name of the Patriarch of Moscow is elevated at services in the Ukrainian Church and in the Estonian Church before the names of the Metropolitans of Kiev and Tallinn, respectively.

Thus, I see no difference between their status as "integral parts of the MP" or not. I do not know what the status of the Estonian Church (EP) is within the EP. However, it seems to me that, for matters of OrthodoxWiki:

1. If the Ukrainian Church is listed as an autonomous church with unrecognized autonomy in the box of autonomous / autocephalous churches, so too should be the Estonian Church (MP), alongside the Estonian Church (EP). This is already happening on the French version of the project.

2. There should be two articles. One called "Church of Estonia (EP)" and one called "Church of Estonia (MP)". The article "Church of Estonia" ought to be a disambiguation page. Doing otherwise may be construed as taking sides in a canonical debate.

Yours in Christ, --[[User:Aleks|Aleks]] 15:56, June 23, 2008 (UTC)
: Done --[[User:Adeosja|Adeosja]] 16:46, August 15, 2009 (UTC)

== New Article - '''[[Georgii Shavelsky]]''' ==

'''Hi, when you have the time, could you please create his Biography - [[Georgii Shavelsky]] - to compliment the osource Memoir you create? I have cut and paste a really bad "Google" translation of a biography I found from the 'source', see below. ... I do not read or understand Russian so there is no way I can edit the google translation for accuracy of information bc I can not cross check it with the authentic material in the Russian language. I created a OrthodoxSource article to link the Memoir you created, please visit [[osource:Author:Georgii Shavelsky]] to link the OW article and also modify the osource article.''' - [[User:Ixthis888|Vasiliki]] 01:22, June 26, 2008 (UTC)

* Source: [http://209.85.171.104/translate_c?hl=en&sl=ru&u=http://militera.lib.ru/memo/russian/shavelsky_gi/pre.html&prev=/search%3Fq%3DShavelsky%26hl%3Den]
----
Life, identity and fate of his father George Shavelski represents an unusually coherent whole. Since their memories of. George starts only in 1911, when he received the appointment as military and maritime Protopresvitera clergy, Publisher them. Chekhov is experiencing living need to give readers a better understanding of the life of this exceptional man and a prominent cleric.

George O. Shavelsky was born on January 6, 1871 in the village Dubokray Vitebsk province, in the family dyachka that heavy peasant labour extractive piece of bread for his large family. Primary education has received in the future Protopresbyter Duhovnom College and then graduated from the first course Theological Seminary. Ahead holds the promise of higher education in the Theological Academy. But on. George has chosen to dedicate themselves to serving ordinary people, and in 1891 was appointed psalomshchika very poor parish of Vitebsk province. Here at the same time, and he became a teacher in rural schools. Four years later, he took the San priesthood and was appointed rector in his native village of another province. Two years later, his wife died, leaving him two-year-old girl. However, Father Georgy not fallen spirit, wholeheartedly commend pastoral work. Soon, on the recommendation of the bishop of Vitebsk, about. George was sent to St. Petersburg for the admission of Spiritual Academy. He brilliantly stood the entrance examination and immediately allocate as the best student of the Academy. [6]

As far back as when his student, about. George was appointed preacher at the Alexandrovsky Engineering Plant and decent in the name of Grand Duke Dmitry Konstantinovich in Strelna. As a student 3 - course, he became rector Suvorovskoy church.

When broke out Russian-Japanese war, about. George volunteered to go to the front and received the appointment in the army regimental first priest, then divisional decent, mostly at the end of the priest Manchu armies. For his outstanding leadership and exceptional prowess (the risk to the life he visited the front line, where once suffered severe concussion), about. George was elevated to the rank of archpriest of St. and awarded honors. And St. George. Vladimir with swords.

In March 1906 on. George returned to his pastoral ministry in Suvorovskoy Church in St. Petersburg. In addition to pastoral service, Fr. Georgy very early borrowed teaching activity. Since 1906 - till 1910 - the year he was zakonouchitelem in Smolny Institute, a professor of theology in 1910 Historical Studies Institute. In the same in 1910 about. George became a member of the military spiritual Protopresbyter. The next in 1911, about. George was appointed Protopresbyter military and maritime clergy Russian Empire.

Events shook Russia's first revolution of 1904-5. heightened public interest Church circles to religious education officers and soldiers. O. George was the initiator of special institutions for officers theological readings. His lectures always been a huge success. At the initiative on. George, such readings have been organized in Moscow, Kiev, Kharkov and Kazan garrisons.

Even before the start 1 - World War II, in the first period [7] his protopresviterstva (1911-1914's.) About. George has totally restructured and greatly raise the military and especially maritime clergy, it attracted a number of prominent clerics. It should be noted, and emphasize his ability and the ability to select a talented assistants and keep firmly in their hands, those, different abilities were not always at a height in nature. From the clergy subordinate to him, he demanded that everyone worked fully its forces and capabilities, but will certainly worked; negligent and stroptivyh he pursued and expelled. His kipuchey energy and skill to come to any good and useful case and bring it to the end, as well as their availability, responsiveness and willingness to come to the aid of everyone in need, he earned the love, respect and trust him in a subordinate of about 5,000 people (during the war) clergy, which in 1917 at its All-Russian congress elected him his life Protopresbyter.

By the end of July 1914. George has prepared a draft name to the highest total reorganization of management and maritime military clergy. To carry out his he was not given. Gryanula war. George O. received the appointment in Stavku High-Chief.
Further story of his life and work on. George tells himself to the attention of readers memoir. After the end of civil war. George moved to Bulgaria. Here he first became an ordinary priest. Outstanding ability and talent on the bright predicant. George was soon rated as the Bulgarian church authorities and local universities. George O. was brought to the pedagogical work first as a teacher Sophia University, then as a professor of Theological [8], Faculty of Sofia University, while he was zakonouchitelem and director of Russian grammar school.

George O. and was destined to survive the Second World War. He died rather quietly ugas 2 - October 1951. Despite the fact that the death of Fr. George could not inform all his friends, relatives and acquaintances, the news of the death of Fr. George razneslas with lightning speed, not only for Sofia, but also for the province. The funeral on. George attracted a huge number of people simply wanted to ashes beloved pastor and mentor.

Outstanding organizational skills, teaching skills, independence of judgement, faithful to their convictions, combined in on. Georgia with remarkable humility in his personal life and habits. This modesty especially stay invisible when compared with the breadth of its aid near and far. These qualities about. George Shavelskogo served as a source of legends, which is still in his lifetime became folded around his behalf.
----

== The Reason You Make the Big Bucks ==

Fr. Andrew, as I noted on the main moderator page, the Liturgy of St. Tikhon article needs moderation -- more than you provided. I'm offended at being equated with my attacker, and had you bothered to read the bulk of the post, you'd note I more than presented a thorough case for why my edits improved the article. IMO, the word "almost" should be struck from the record, but the last time this same poster started three simultaneous edit-wars with me (Feb. 12-14), you threatened to ban us both if we ever did it again. (There I am getting blamed for ''responding'' again.) So, to avoid being banned by you, I'm asking you to do the moderator's job, read the background material about how the AWRV has implemented all these in actual fact (which you probably know already), and (if you're convinced) strike the word "almost" from the article (or if not, let us know why not). You're a moderator, and I'm tired of being blamed for responding -- so have at it. :) --[[User:Willibrord|Willibrord]] 03:32, June 28, 2008 (UTC)
:Thanks. I know how busy you must be with PLC coming up, but I appreciate your looking things over.--[[User:Willibrord|Willibrord]] 22:56, June 28, 2008 (UTC)

Deacon Ben got in trouble for "responding"? He deleted an entire article of mine. (I put it back :) ) BTW, Father Andrew, THANK YOU for being objective and noting that a page titled "Western Rite and Old Calendarists" was about the Western Rite and Old Calendarists. I would love to review what "Willibrord" was "confirming"-- forgive my presumption but the man has an agenda. I wish I had the exact quote of Patriarch Elias of Antioch the first time he saw the "St Tikhon" liturgy: to paraphrase, he expressed surprised at an Orthodox liturgy that never once mentioned the Theotokos. --[[User:JosephSuaiden|JosephSuaiden]] 21:14, July 18, 2008 (UTC)

== Something the North Got Right ==

"I'm a Southerner by birth and at heart, though I do wish there were more proper bakeries south of the Mason-Dixon Line. That's possibly one of the major things Yankees have gotten right."

They didn't do too bad at emancipation or crop-burning, either.--[[User:Willibrord|Willibrord]] 03:36, June 28, 2008 (UTC)

== Wikipedia: article or version permalink ==

I am curious as to why you changed the Wikipedia link back to the general article (for the [[Leo VI]] article). Since the Wikipedia page was listed as a source, my understanding is that OrthodoxWiki prefers the version permalink (cf. [[OrthodoxWiki:Style Manual (Importing)]]); for external links (not sources), I can understand using the interwiki for the general Wikipedia article, but this one is a source. —[[User:Magda|magda]] ([[User_talk:Magda|talk]]) 16:22, July 1, 2008 (UTC)

== Non-standard characters ==

I remember (so I hope this happened) discussing on the wiki the policy of using standard Latin characters for article names. However, I cannot find any mention of this policy or any discussion about it. I checked the move log, and the only moves for "standard characters" are mine. Do you remember anything about this, or do you have thoughts on writing this up as a policy? (I think it's a good idea to have non-standard characters within the article, and as a redirect to the article.) —[[User:Magda|magda]] ([[User_talk:Magda|talk]]) 22:06, July 1, 2008 (UTC)

== "African Orthodox Chruch" ==
Hi Fr Andrew :)
I wanted to ask you about a topic I just came across.... In the [[Time of Church History]] article, the entry for 1924 refers to:
''"..Bp. Daniel William Alexander convenes meeting in Kimberley, South Africa, which decides to secede from the African Church (a Protestant denomination) and affiliate with the "African Orthodox Church" in New York under George McGuire;"''

Anyways, I accidentally came across a webpage that discusses the history of the [http://www.coltranechurch.org/african.htm "African Orthodox Church"], stating "The A.O.C. was founded by George Alexander McGuire in 1921."

After reading this short summary, I am still not sure who this group is,..obsvioulsy non-canonical with mainstream Orthodoxy?? So, should we have an article on this group in the OW, for clarification purposes? Or at least an article on George Alexander McGuire? What do you think?
Cheers,
Chris.
[[User:Angellight 888|Angellight 888]] 18:32, July 4, 2008 (UTC)

== A request for Orthodox Christian participants in a project ==

Dear Admin AsDamick,

Since I believe in the unity of saints in regards to Christendom as a whole and because I have read excellent works written by Orthodox Christians, I was hoping to get the Orthodox Christian community involved in a project.

The project I currently have going is the refutation of atheism on the internet. As part of this effort, I created what is likely the seventh most popular article on atheism on the internet in the English speaking world and the article can be found here: http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism The article is currently ranked #7 at Google USA for the search "atheism". I can use this article to help other articles rank high on the search engines for various articles on atheism by featuring those articles in the aforementioned article.

I currently work in the search engine optimization field which is simplified is helping clients rank high for Google for various topics and searches. I am willing to teach you some excellent principles in regards to this field so your material would likely have prominence on the internet. The principles are easy to learn and it would be my pleasure to teach my fellow Christians involved in a anti-atheism campaign some fundamental principles in regards to getting their material to rank high for the search engines and do it on a volunteer basis.

Since Orthodox Christianity suffered greatly under atheistic communism, I would like to have the Orthodox Community be a part of the anti-atheism campaign. Also, there are many Orthodox Christians. Perhaps you could provide me useful feedback in relation to the above anti-atheism article. Also, perhaps you could help me gain the contributions of Orthodox Christians to the anti-atheism campaign.

I decided to start this campaign partly due to the the New Atheism that has reared its head as of late.

Please let me know if you or others are interested in any of the above. You can contact me at my user talk page. [[User:Manchuria|Manchuria]] 14:49, July 13, 2008 (UTC)

== OSource Main Page ==

Hi, could you please replace current Main Page code with revised code that I have temporarily placed at: '''[[osource:Sandbox]]'''. Thanks - [[User:Ixthis888|Vasiliki]] 03:05, July 16, 2008 (UTC)

== Hosting copyright material on OrthodoxSource ==

Hi, I have received permission from an Orthodox priest to host his articles on OrthodoxSource. Now, I wanted to make sure that this would be ok before going and dumping his articles on OS so that I dont get (a) myself into trouble and (b) OrthodoxSource into trouble. What is the process for "documenting" the permission to use the article? Its only me that has a copy of this email on my private gmail email - do I forward Father John Schroedel a copy and is that enough to cover orthodoxSource from copyright issues???? I am very interested to understand what to do from here before I start dumping his material. [[User:Ixthis888|Vasiliki]] 02:02, July 21, 2008 (UTC)

== Help Me ... please ==

Can you please modify the Main Page on OrthodoxSource to '''"remove"''' the sentence ''"An online repository of archival and contemporary open-license Orthodox content..."'' which advertises orthodoxSource as "Open-license" ...

I was emailing Father John Schroedel who explained that by this sentence it can be understood that: ''by open-license, I would mean something that can be freely copied, and perhaps modified. The Creative Commons licenses do a good job of allowing a range of terms and conditions while still encouraging the free use of the content.''

This is one of his concerns, since he visions: ''I had envisioned, for example, putting archival/historical content there -- such as the old pamphlets that constitute a large part of the printed record of Orthodox in the U.S. in the early part of the last century, or photos of Orthodox places that are distributed under a creative commons license, or other public materials, epecially those items of significance for the history and identity of the Orthodox community.''

I would like to make him happy (and do things right of course) but I can not modify the Main Page to rectify this mistake of mine :-) That sentence ''"An online repository of archival and contemporary open-license Orthodox content..."'' is a direct cut and paste from "WikiSource" when I was setting up the structure and since you have locked the Main Page, I can not rectify my edit ...
- [[User:Ixthis888|Vasiliki]] 23:49, July 21, 2008 (UTC)

== Fr John - old Pamphlets ==

Hi, because I am in Australia picking up the phone is a hard thing to do :-) Can you speak with Father John and ask him which Pamphlets he would like loaded onto OrthodoxSource. I am happy to start "setting" it all up for him ...if you like you can email me the *.pdf's on my personal email ... Do you know how to access my email without me having to post it publicaly? [[User:Ixthis888|Vasiliki]] 00:07, July 22, 2008 (UTC)

: I really have no idea what you're talking about. Unfortunately, I am also unable to do much outside contact at the moment, since I am at a clergy conference and away from home. (I also don't even have Fr. John's phone number!) —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 19:31, July 23, 2008 (UTC)

== Taxiarhis ==

Look, thanks for that. I did a OW search on the word "Taxiarhis" and did not find it ... it never occured to me to search on the "Taxiar'''c'''his" spelling ... thanks for fixing up and sorry to waste your time on something I should have picked up in the first instance. - [[User:Ixthis888|Vasiliki]] 23:14, July 30, 2008 (UTC)

== Good-morning ==

Hi, I am a little confused because I didnt revert anyones edits (?) As for the actual note you left on my page ... Thanks and Sorry, if I "intercepted" the edit by the Publication company but I didnt think (at the time) I made any drastic changes (like I didnt delete anything). I dont believe I 'disciplined' them either I made a friendly suggestion and encouraged them by even adding a link and the potential for them to contribute! Anyway, I dont know why as a grown woman I have to explain and apologise by now you should know that I am keen in assisting here so by default - SORRY! Thanks for the heads-up! Maybe you can think about "using"/or "directing" me towards what you actually want from me because quite frankly it gets tiring doing the wrong thing all the time :-) and then being 'advised' :-) so, I will leave it up to you to leave a "task list" for me to follow through on. Cheerio and God Bless. [[User:Ixthis888|Vasiliki]] 22:50, August 6, 2008 (UTC)

== Email ==
What are the steps in "My Preferences" for making my email accessible without being public? - [[User:Ixthis888|Vasiliki]] 23:07, August 6, 2008 (UTC)

==Talk:Sarum Use==
Hello Fr, I was trying to add some comments to this discussion page, and when I tried to save it removed all existing comments. Tried to undo the revision, and the undo did not save. Not able to restore,,can you please help?? Thanks,
[[User:Angellight 888|Angellight 888]] 21:22, August 26, 2008 (UTC)

== http://www.chrysostom.org/writings.html ==

Hi, two of your links do now work on the "Writings" page ...
:BEATITUDES: http://www.ocf.org/OrthodoxPage/reading/St.Pachomius/matthom15.html
:LORDS PRAYER: http://www.ocf.org/OrthodoxPage/reading/St.Pachomius/matthom19.html
I thought you might want to know this so you could update the page.
[[User:Ixthis888|Vasiliki]] 23:28, November 2, 2008 (UTC)

PS. I also took a photo of an icon of Chrysostom within the Church of the Holy Trinity, Taksim, Constantinople. It is a gorgeous fresco of him ... I am more than happy to give you permmission to use it on your webpage ... oh yeah, and His relics (God Bless, at the Patriarchate I was weeping when I realised who I was venerating) ...one catch only ... can you change the background colour of the web page from black to something more positive and colourful like white?? LOL [[User:Ixthis888|Vasiliki]] 23:30, November 2, 2008 (UTC)

== Osource ==
Hey, it's getting all too hard :-)

I ''have'' asked in the past for some assistance but been ignored - except for Andrew, who has legitimately stepped in and helped set up codes and stuff. Awesome guy. I can offer again, what I said months ago, ... if '''you''', or someone, can just '''DUMP material''' into a Sandbox ... that you believe should be ON Osource or you want on Osource ... I will do the clean up work and categorisation and formatting the very next day :-) if we dont all come to some working solution the site will just sit there neglected ... which would be such a shame as there are many people who are accessing it to read the articles.

So, what do you say? Will you work with me? Give me 'dumps' of "anytyhing" that does not breach copyright and I will fix it up for the good of OW/OS and the Orthodox community?

[[User:Ixthis888|Vasiliki]] 22:29, November 20, 2008 (UTC)

== Updating The Great Schism ==

Fr. Andrew:

Who would you prefer that I get permission from to post this material? (I will do so, if possible) , because I believe it will greatly benefit this article!

Thanks,

Jaye (Jacifus)

== Great Schism Edit ==

Fr.

I respectfully disagree that the Entire Eastern Church was not excommunicated. The Bull said as much. I refer you to Bishop Kallistos "The Orthodox Church". I consider his account to be carefully researched and accurate.

Jaye (jacifus)

: Please refer comments on the content of specific articles to their respective talk pages. Thanks! —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 01:08, December 14, 2008 (UTC)

== Editing OId Believers ==

Dear father Andrew,

Perhaps you should have a look at the Old Believers article one again. All cleaning up has been reverted by Fatman2021, without any explanation on the Discussion page.

I suppose we don't leave the article as it is now and if you have the authority to clean up once again, I'd strongly suggest you'd do so. (If I were to do the job, I'm afraid an edit war with Fatman2021 may become inevitable.)
[[User:Vasstar|Vasstar]] 14:13, December 14, 2008 (UTC)

== URGENT - Ambush by computer generated Users ==

Hi, we are about to be ambushed by computer generated User accounts ....... [[User:Ixthis888|Vasiliki]] 04:05, December 17, 2008 (UTC)

==Name of ROC==

I have read the policy by the link you have indicated. Frankly, i did not quite get the meaning clear, or the purpose thereof. The thing with the ROC is that there are 2 legally official names of the entity (as registered by the RF Justice Minisrty): ''Русская православная церковь'' and ''Московский патриархат''. In all honesty, the name used in the relevant article has never been in existence, albeit it could be an historiographic designation covering the multitude of names; in effect the ROC had not had a properly official name prior to 1943, when it was formally recognised by state under this name.[[User:Muscovite99|Max]] 18:00, December 18, 2008 (UTC)

: This is answered on [[Talk:Church of Russia]]. As is noted in a number of our policy documents, we have our own taxonomy here, which often does not reflect official, legal names. The official OrthodoxWiki standard for all Orthodox churches is ''Church of [Place]''. This policy has been in effect pretty much since the wiki was founded in 2004. —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 19:37, December 18, 2008 (UTC)
::*I can perfectly see the logic behind such taxonomy and even accept it. But the point is, as i noted in my original edit comment, that such designation is not only formally incorrect, but in essence as well (by essence i mean the ecclesiological reasoning that obviously underpins your taxonomy). This is no more a Church of Russia than it is a Church of Ukraine (in fact, Ukraine could well lay a historically better grounded claim to it), or Latvia, for that matter. If one were to base the wording of the designation on the title of a Primate in question (which would be a legitimate thing to do within your taxonomy), the article would have to be called "Church of Moscow" (or "Church of Rus"). Paradoxically, you have chosen to employ the current official name of a country, which constitutes only a fraction (less than half by parish numbers) of the "canonical territory" of the ROC. How can you warrant that?[[User:Muscovite99|Max]] 20:00, December 22, 2008 (UTC)

::: It's warranted with a combination of basic ecclesiology (i.e., the Church is not "Russian," "Greek," etc., but it is the Church in and of a particular place—Russia, Greece, etc.) and of English usage. ("Church of Russia" gets about 30,000 hits on Google.) It's notably the usage of such groups as the OCA[http://www.oca.org/OCworldrussia.asp?SID=2], etc. Of course its usage pales in comparison with "Russian Orthodox Church," but that term is objectionable for the reasons previously noted. ("Church of Moscow" is a somewhat idiosyncratic term hardly ever used except in larger, translated phrases such as "Estonian Church of Moscow Patriarchate.")

::: The many parishes in Ukraine are covered by a separate article: [[Church of Ukraine]] (along with articles on the irregular bodies, as well).

::: No matter what one names these articles, they'll not be satisfactory to all. This is what our policy here is. Our policy has been to use the city names for the ancient patriarchates but common country names for the newer autocephalous and autonomous churches (the exceptions are the OCA, which is of somewhat irregular status, and the Church of Sinai, which designates a region). You'll notice that this is consistently the case.

::: Anyway, the proper place to discuss the names of articles is on the talk pages of the articles themselves. That way, everyone interested in working on the article can participate. Please direct future comments to [[Talk:Church of Russia]]. —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 21:25, December 22, 2008 (UTC)

== Prove to Me that We need that Guy ==

I will be the first to put UP my hand and say "WE NEED THAT GUY"! bet you never thought I would say that they way "sou vgazo glwssa oli tin wra" [[User:Ixthis888|Vasiliki]] 03:15, December 19, 2008 (UTC)

: Vasiliki, it's not "we need ''that guy''," but rather I'm the Guy Who Says "Prove To Me That We Need That [article/addition/thing/etc.]." There is a reason why I placed the hyphens where I did. —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 21:04, December 19, 2008 (UTC)
::I give up ... I just wish you could not be so 'scholastic'with me some times and just ... lighten up :) I apologise in advance ... [[User:Ixthis888|Vasiliki]] 13:13, December 20, 2008 (UTC)

::: Vasiliki, it's not "scholastic" to expect that readers actually read carefully. It's just good language usage. There's a reason why grammar, syntax, punctuation, etc., work the way they do. It might help if you didn't so frequently assume the worst when reading what other folks write.

::: Certainly, perhaps this level of reading and writing comprehension is not needed for everyday life (though I think it is!), but it surely is absolutely crucial when writing a reference work like an encyclopedia! Indeed, if being "scholastic" is needed anywhere, it's here. —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 16:21, December 20, 2008 (UTC)

== Timeline ==
Hello Father, Eulogeite. First I wanted to wish you very warm Christmas wishes. Christ is born, Glorify Him! :)
I wanted to ask if I can proceed and create the 10 sub-articles for the Timeline of Church History article (one sub-article for each of the 10 periods listed on the main article). Each sub-article would look exactly the same as the main article now does ,except that it would contain only the information for that particular era of course. I proposed a criterion on the talk page for what may be included on the reduced main timeline page; basically, if you agree and I can proceed to create the 10 sub-articles, with your blessing, and then shorten the remaining main article according to the criteria I attempted to set out, it would be great; I would emphasize that no information would be lost -- all the complete listings of the current timeline would remain on the 10-sub-articles. Or, I could create the 10-sub-rticles, and then you could do the final edit (reduction) of the main page then? Just an idea! Please let me know what you think! Cheers and Merry Christmas Father. Chris. :)
[[User:Angellight 888|Angellight 888]] 03:03, December 21, 2008 (UTC)

==Deletion of template==
HEY - you deleted two templates so all the information on these is GONE! How do I get the information back? I know you are the moderator/administrator but can you PLEASE just ONCE be kinder ... give me a 24 hour notice to MOVE the information????? Can you please resupply the stuff IN the templates. [[User:Ixthis888|Vasiliki]] 03:00, January 1, 2009 (UTC)

: It's not gone. I've noted on your Talk page where you can find it. —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 13:50, January 1, 2009 (UTC)

== Font Colours ==

Which article talks about how to do font colours and different text styles in HTML? [[User:Ixthis888|Vasiliki]] 03:25, January 5, 2009 (UTC)

: There isn't one on the wiki. There are plenty of HTML tutorials elsewhere, though. —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 04:20, January 6, 2009 (UTC)

== Ah you're a quick one! ==

Not bad--you got rid of my talk post in just less than 24 hours. Not bad...my hat's off to you sir! You have a gift for wiki-editing!{{unsigned|AmanUwellCant}}

: Inherently disruptive posts without any engagement regarding content are removed as a matter of form. —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 01:56, January 22, 2009 (UTC)

== Thank U for the work you put in ==

I am not the site owner but I am sure that if awards could be given to the most hard-woring Users on Orthodoxwiki there would be three to give out: you, Wsk and ASDamick! I wanted to pause at this point in my OrthodoxWiki career and acknowledge the efforts of those people who really do put a lot of time and effort into keeping OW alive and say Thank you for the work and time you put into making the articles rewarding!!! [[User:Ixthis888|Vasiliki]] 03:55, January 20, 2009 (UTC)

== Antioch and the Armenians ==
I have been to a canonical Antiochian church where they gave communion to Armenians . How do they do this ? [[User:Eugene|Eugene]] 20:25, January 23, 2009 (UTC)

: Is it a sin to be ethnically Armenian? Anyway, I cannot answer for what is done in a particular parish. Why not talk to the pastor? —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 22:44, January 23, 2009 (UTC)

As in Armenian Apostolic. And he said that they were in communion with them, that's why I'm asking you because you said on your page that it's not possible [[User:Eugene|Eugene]] 23:49, January 23, 2009 (UTC)

: The Armenian Apostolic church is not in communion with the Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch. This is how my and all the bishops of our Archdiocese consistently answer when questioned on the topic.

: Again, I cannot answer for what is done at a parish which is outside of my responsibility, especially when it is not clear that all the facts are apparent. (We have, for instance, Coptic Christians who commune at our parish, but that is because they are members of our parish, having been received into communion through confession of faith.) —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 00:52, January 24, 2009 (UTC)

== Technical problem ==

I am a new user and could not find the detailed information about how to bring images from Wikimedia Commons to Orthodox Wiki. I would be very grateful if you could help. [[User:Bag|Bag]] 21:28, March 6, 2009 (UTC)

== Article titles ==

Hi, should I put the country name in the titles of my articles on churches (like Białystok, Poland)? They're already cathegorized as "Polish churches" so I don't think it's necessary. [[User:Bag|Bag]] 09:06, March 9, 2009 (UTC)

== Chrysostom ==
Hello again, I looked at the St. John Chrysostom page, and thought that the St. John Chrysostom Oratorical Festival should be included. It would show that he has inspired children to orate the word of God to others, continuing in his footsteps. Since I have participated in the past and am in it again this year, I though it would be a good idea to mention it, and maybe put a link to the [[GOARCH]] website where they talk more about it and give more information. Tell me what you think! Thanks, --[[User:Iliada|Iliada]] 18:01, March 16, 2009 (UTC)

: I've responded to your comment at [[Talk:John Chrysostom]]. In the future, you may wish to keep your comments limited only to the specific article in question. Posting it in multiple places is not in itself likely to gain notice. —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 01:36, March 19, 2009 (UTC)

== Is WO a live forum of information or is it selective in the information it displays? ==

This post refers to your changes in the page;

St. George Free Serbian Orthodox Church (Forrest, Australian Capital Territory)

I myself am not involved on the dispute and have no intention of support to either side in this tragedy.

When I originally viewed this page I was disheartened to observe the lack of information and that misleading information had been posted there. I understand that this most likely had been posted by a user and as such is not subject to your personal knowledge.

I conducted several days of investigation and research in order to update the page appropriately and even went to the extent of seeking the authorisation to post the information from the Church and organisation, which they granted.

I find it offensive that you would label this work as “Heavily Point of View”.

I fail to understand why you would allow false and misleading information to remain posted. A young and inspired person chooses to update the page using only fact and you would rather support outdated and misinformed material.

The general community that observed this page in its renewed form offered significant positive feedback.

I will stand corrected if you can show me grounds for your dismissal of my updates to this page? I can provide you with factual record and account of all the information I had posted on that page and request that it be allowed to remain.

If persons should see fit to add to that information, I implore them to do so.

Otherwise I believe that the page should be removed as it displays false and misleading information and if you should require I can have this formally requested from the community and association which this information refers to?

I can understand your removal of the Postal address and agree fairly to the emission of such information. All I ask is be fair in relation to the content of the post?

I am willing to build and develop the page if you can suggest some points that would make the information less “Point of View”?

Young Serb

:[[User:Young_Serb|Young Serb]], I suspect that the conclusion of the original article (which was ''very'' POV) may have taken from the facts that were in play. In response to [[User:ASDamick|Fr Andrew]]'s request, I have taken the liberty of bringing the two together.
:Please consider that, as a parish, the subject matter was dubiously noteworthy enough to place on OrthodoxWiki; as a parish that has now placed itself outside the Church, more so. This doesn't excuse incorrect information, of course; but if you consider that details are sparse, this may have been done for a reason - this is, conceptually, an encyclopaedia, and is therefore rather lacking in emotive speech and in minutiae. However, should you find the article to still be misleading, please correct it. — by [[User:Pistevo|Pιsτévο]] ''[[User talk:Pistevo|talk]]'' ''[[User talk:Pistevo/dev/null|complaints]]'' at 13:37, April 24, 2009 (UTC)

== Azarias? ==
Χριστος ανεστη! This has nothing to do with Orthodox Wikipedia, but when I read the 3 youths passage on Holy Saturday, I noticed that Azarias is not one of the original three youths. there's Meeshak, Shadrack, and Abendago. Those three are describes throughout the whole reading, but then it says that Azarias said something. Who is Azarias? Thanks, --[[User:Iliada|Iliada]] 17:29, April 24, 2009 (UTC)

: Shadrac, Meshach, and Abednago are the Babylonian names of the Hebrew Hananiah (Ananias), Azariah (Azarias) and Mishael (Misael). —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 23:14, April 25, 2009 (UTC)

== With the feast! ==

Today already Pentecost is, but at you on the Main page still congratulations with Ascention.

==Proposed New Page?==
Greetings Father. :) I wanted to ask your opinion about a new page I was thinking of adding. While researching some old books and resources for some of my articles, I found a number of puzzling abbreviations besides authors names, who were mostly Roman Catholic authors or scholars or from religious orders. Anyways, I found this list here: [http://www.fisheaters.com/religiousorderabbreviations.html Abbreviations of Religious Orders and Priestly Fraternitiies], and was thinking it would be a good reference page to add here, cataloged in a Roman catholic category perhaps. Just an idea, this info would help eliminate guesswork when going over historical documents. Cheers, [[User:Angellight 888|Angellight 888]] 23:59, July 8, 2009 (UTC)

== Request for speedy deletion ==

Delete please this error redirect [http://ru.orthodoxwiki.org/index.php?title=%D0%9A%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9_%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B9_%D0%BB%D0%B5%D1%81%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BD&redirect=no] as recently created redirect page resulting from a typographical error. --[[User:Imerek|Imerek]] 22:04, March 12, 2010 (UTC)

==What is Orthodoxwiki?==

I noticed you deleted (rather speedily) the Luther page I imported. I'm wondering if Orthodoxwiki is "Articles on topics directly pertaining to Orthodoxy" or "Articles giving Orthodox views on all topics."

Talk:Martin luther

2010-06-18T20:21:26Z

CircularReason: Do we need a Luther article?

==Do we need a Luther article?==

Is Orthodoxwiki an encyclopedia of Orthodox topics
or an Orthodox perspective on all topics of interest to those within the Church and those without, whether Roman Catholic, Protestant, or non-believing?

For inquirers to Orthodoxy who might turn to Orthodoxwiki, we have the opportunity to provide a concise review of Luther and Lutheranism, providing outside links of interest, to explain the Church's true teachings on the issues he misunderstood.

Thoughts?

A History of Orthodox Missions Among the Muslims

2010-06-14T18:07:10Z

CircularReason: wording, spelling, grammar, citations needed

'''A History of Orthodox Missions Among the Muslims''' by Yurij Maximov
----

It is widely believed that Muslims do not abandon [[Islam]]. This widespread opinion is, however, only partly true. It is true that it is difficult to convert Muslims, but it is not so much the difficulty of converting Muslims as it is the scarcity of Christian missions among them that leads us to believe they are hard to convert. Still, if many think that Muslims are difficult to convert to Protestantism or Roman Catholicism, even more would think it impossible to convert Muslims to the Orthodox Faith. This later opinion has its basis in a general lack of knowledge about the [[missionary]] labors of the Orthodox throughout the ages and the world in places as diverse and far apart as Africa, India, Siberia, China, Japan, and Alaska. Indeed, the history of Orthodox missions among the Muslims is a particularly important and fascinating part of the overall mission of the [[Orthodox Church]]. As it is impossible to fully cover the history of Orthodox missions among the Muslims here I have only attempted to highlight some of its facets to give those interested a better idea about this part of the Orthodox Church's missions.

Although it is generally known that many of Muhammad's followers found refuge in Ethiopia during the early years of Islam, it is not well known that one of his followers, Ubaidallah ibn Jahiz, became a Christian while in Ethiopia and was [[baptize]]d there. He was the first Muslim, but certainly not the last, to discover and embrace the truth. Here are two stories from the early history of Islam, both set in the reign of the fourth 'righteous' caliph, Muhammad's nephew and son-in-law Ali: "One Muslim converted to Christianity. Ali ordered him to return to Islam, but he refused. Ali killed him and would not give his body to his relatives, though they offered much money. Ali burnt the body. "Another man from the tribe Bani-Ijl became a Christian. He was brought shackled to Ali, who spoke at length with the convert. In response to Ali's questions the man said, "I know that Isa [Jesus] is the Son of God." Then Ali stood up and stamped on him. When the others saw it they also started to trample the man down. And Ali said: "Kill him." He was killed and Ali ordered that the body be burnt."

'''Missions within the East Roman or Byzantine Empire'''

From history we know that after the Arab Muslims' early conquest of Antioch the East Roman or Byzantine Empire regained that great city, together with northern and central Syria, during the 10th century. During the ensuing period of Byzantine rule the entire Arab Muslim population voluntarily converted to Orthodoxy, including the Arab nobility.{{Ref|1}} The same happened in the district of Laodicea and the town of Melitene, which returned to the Byzantine Empire during the same time period.{{Ref|2}} Most notable, however, is the conversion of the Bedouin tribe of the Banu Khabib in 935, who "[numbered] 12,000 horsemen with full armament, with families, clients (people who were not members of the tribe, but who enjoyed its protection - Y.M.), and slaves joined the Greeks, accepted Christ and started to fight against their former fellow believers.{{Ref|3}} A history in Arabic by Ibn Safir, who wrote in the 13th century, said that the Banu Khabib remained Christians "till today."

Several examples of more 'concentrated' missions among the Muslims can be found in Byzantine hagiographical works. In the middle of the 9th century St. Theodore of Edessa converted the "Saracen king", Muawid, one of the three sons of the Umayyad caliph Mutawakkil (847-861), to Orthodoxy, baptizing him with the name John together with his three confidants.{{Ref|4}} St. Ilya the New, when staying in Palestine at the end of the 9th century, healed and baptized many Muslims. Later, while traveling to Persia, the Saint met twelve Muslims whom he converted to Christianity and baptized.{{Ref|5}} At the opening of the 9th century St. Gregory Dekapolites wrote about the conversion of the Umayyad caliph's nephew, which was followed by the conversion of many other Muslims.{{Ref|6}}

There are other vivid stories that can be recalled. At the end of the 9th century and the beginning of the 10th century a Spanish Muslim, Omar ibn Khaphsun, converted to Christianity with his sons and ruled over several mountain valleys for nearly fifty years, having the castle Bobastro as his residence.{{Ref|7}} During the same period of time the Kurdish prince Ibn-ad-Dahhak, who possessed the fortress of al-Jafary, abandoned Islam for Orthodoxy.{{Ref|8}} Additionally, the contemporaries of the Muslim theologian Abdallah ibn Kullaib (who died in 955) write that he secretly converted to Christianity.{{Ref|9}} It is also known that Bunei ibn Nefis, a military commander and confidant of caliph al-Muktadir, became an Orthodox Christian and fought with the Byzantines against arabs.

Looking at all of these sources we can say that as many as 100,000 Muslims converted to Christianity during the 9th and 10th centuries. It is also interesting to note that in the 15th century the great Muslim city of Baghdad and some regions of Asia Minor ruled by the Turkish Kara-Kiunglu dynasty adopted Christianity, they having been condemned by Egyptian historians for [[apostasy]].{{Ref|10}}

'''Missions of the Russian Orthodox Church'''

The [[Russian Orthodox Church]] has a long history of mission work among the Muslims. St. Michael of Kiev (who lived in the 10th century) sent the [[monk]] Mark to preach Christ to the Muslim Bulgars, and thanks to his efforts four Bulgar princes were converted and baptized. St. Peter of Moscow (who lived in the 13th century) publicly debated with Muslim preachers and triumphed over them. St. Makary of Moscow (who lived in the 16th century) baptized Ediger-Mohammed, the last khan of Kazan, and preached the Orthodox Faith among the Tatars. Thanks to over four centuries of missionary work a new subgroup developed within the Tatar people, the Krjashens or Orthodox Tatars. According to the 1926 census the Krjashens numbered around 200,000.{{Ref|11}} Today they number nearly 320,000.

Another Turkic people who converted from Islam to Orthodoxy are the Gagauz, their total number today being around 220,000. Since 1994 they have had their own autonomous territory within the Republic of Moldova - the "Gagauz Yeri." The Gagauz descended from the Turkic Oguz, Pechenegs, and Polovzy who adopted Islam as early as the 9th century but later converted to Christianity in the 13th century. A sprinkling of Arabic words and Muslim terms found in everyday Gagauz are the main evidences of their Islamic heritage. In the Russian-Turkish wars at the end of the 18th century and the beginning of the 19th the Gagauz fought for the Russians, at the same time settling the depopulated steppes of southern Bessarabia (modern day Moldova).

Missions among the Caucasian peoples of southern Russia have been no less fruitful. During the second half of the 16th century Allah-Verdi of Tsakhur, who had previously converted from Islam and had become a Christian missionary, brought the entire Ingyl Georgian tribe back to Orthodoxy.{{Ref|12}} At the dawn of the 19th century over 47,000 Ossetians converted to Christianity, thus bringing the majority of the Ossetian people out of Islam. By 1823 nearly all Ossetians were Orthodox.
Quite a lot Abkhazians also returned to Orthodoxy - between 1866 and 1902 a total of 21336 Muslim Abkhaz became Christian. In August 1759 a Kabardian noble, Kurgoko Konchokin, was baptized with his entire family, taking the name Andrei Ivanov and filing a petition to the mayor of Kizliar town to "assign him a plot for settlement between the hamlets of Mozdok and Mekenem.{{Ref|13}} In 1762 he was given the rank of lieutenant colonel and given the name Konchokin, prince of Cherkasy. It was Ivanov who founded the present town of Mozdok, where many Kabardians settled and voluntarily converted to Orthodoxy. Their descendants number nearly 2,500 and constitute nearly half of the Mozdok Kabardian subgroup.{{Ref|14}} The conversions of well-known and prominent individuals can be found among all the peoples of the Caucasus.

'''Saints of the Orthodox Church who converted from Islam'''

The people dealt with here are special cases, for they converted from Islam and subsequently bore so much spiritual fruit that they were glorified by the Church who saw them as worthy of joining the ranks of the [[Saint]]s who have shone forth in this dark world. Let us briefly look at some of their lives.

On 6 January 786 the Baghdadi Arab, St. [[Abu of Tbilisi]], was baptized. On 14 April 789 the Palestinian Arab, St. Christopher Sabbait, received the [[martyr]]'s crown by taking the vows and performing ascetic labors in the lavra of St. Sabbas (Mar Saba). On 25 December 799 St. Antony-Ruwah, a Damascene Arab of the Quraish tribe, was beheaded for converting to Christianity.{{Ref|15}} Around 800 St. Pachomy, a nephew of the caliph, was murdered after taking vows at [[St. Catherine's Monastery (Sinai)|St. Catherine's Monastery]] near [[Mount Sinai]]. Around 820 St. Barbar, a North African Arab and soldier in a Muslim army, was baptized in the territory of the Byzantine Empire (6/19 May).{{Ref|16}}

On 1 April 1229 the Bulgar merchant St. Abrahamy was killed for preaching Christianity to the Bulgars.{{Ref|17}} In 1552 Sts. [[Peter and Stephan of Kazan]], baptized Tatars, suffered at the hands of their former coreligionists and were killed (24 March/6 April).{{Ref|18}} In 1555 the Tatar Tursas was baptized. He later became known as [[Serapion of Kozheozero]] (27 June/10 July 1611) after founding the Theophany/Epiphany monastery at Kozheozero in northern Russia and raising seven Saints for the Church of Russia.{{Ref|19}} In 1614 St. Hodja Amiris the Soldier, who saw the miracle of the descent of the holy light, was martyred.{{Ref|20}} On 3 May 1682 St. [[Ahmed the Deftedar]], a high-ranking Muslim Turk, was martyred for the Faith.{{Ref|21}} At the beginning of the 19th century St. [[Constantine Hagarit]] (2/15 June 1819){{Ref|22}} and St. John (23 September/6 October 1814), the son of an Albanian sheikh, converted to Christianity and died for Christ.{{Ref|23}} These Saints are the greatest evidence and fruit of the Orthodox Church's missionary labors and its great spiritual (if not statistical) triumph. God, not willing that any should perish, but that all should repent (III Peter 3:9), has gathered together a worthy harvest from the Muslim peoples.

'''Orthodox missions to the Muslims today'''

Orthodoxy continues to evangelize the Muslims today. There are still many conversions of Muslims from Islam to Holy Orthodoxy.

There have been established a 2,500 person Orthodox community in Indonesia, the largest Muslim country in the world. In addition to Indonesia, there are active Orthodox missions in the Muslim regions of Bulgaria and in the predominantly Muslim country of Albania, while in many Muslim countries there are thousands of underground Christians.[citation needed] In the late 1980s [[Archimandrite]] Daniel Byantoro labored to see that Orthodoxy remains involved in evangelizing Muslim peoples.[citation needed]

The [[Church of Georgia]] is making successful missions among muslims in Adjaria; since 1990, many thousands people have received the holy baptism.[citation needed]

Furthermore, in the [[Russian Orthodox Church]] there are Kazakh, Tatar, Chechen, Ingush, and Tabasaranian [[priest]]s. Many of them converted from Islam, and there are several thousand faithful laymen who converted to Orthodoxy from Islam. Especially after the tragedy of Beslan many muslim Osetins became orthodox christians, so every year [[Bishop]] Feofanos of Stavropol baptizes thousand people. In Moscow work community of orthodox tatars.

----
Notes

{{note|1}}. V. Krivov. "Araby-christiane v Antiochii X-XI cc" // Traditzii i nasledije Christianskogo Vostoka (Moscow, 1996), ss. 248-249.

{{note|2}}. A. Mez. Die Renaissance Des Islams (Heidelberg, 1922). Cited by Russian translation: (Moscow, 1996), S. 324.

{{note|3}}. V. Bartold. Turcija, islam i christianstvo / Sochinenija. Vol. VI. (Moscow, 1966), s. 421.

{{note|4}}. Ch. Loparyov. Gretcheskije zhitija svjatych VIII-IX cc. (Petrograd, 1914), ss. 432-433. The information in the "Life of St. Theodore" indirectly proves to be true also by Arabian sources. In 866 Muawid under the order of his brother the caliph was thrown in prison and killed, apparently, for converting to Christianity.

{{note|5}}. Ch. Loparyov. Op. cit. S. 502.

{{note|6}}. J.D. Sahas. "What an Infidel Saw that a Faithful Did Not: Gregory Dekapolites (d. 842) and Islam" // Greek Orthodox Theological Review # 31 (1986), pp. 47-67.

{{note|7}}. G.E. von Grunebaum. Classical Islam. (London, 1970). Cited by Russian translation: (Moscow, 1988), s. 115.

{{note|8}}. A. Vasilyev. Vizantija i araby. Vol. II. (Saint-Petersburg, 1902), s. 220.

{{note|9}}. M.N. Swanson. Early Christian-Muslim Theological Conversation among Arabic-Speaking Intellectuals.

{{note|10}}. V.Bartold. Op. cit. S. 424.

{{note|11}}. A. Schipkov. Vo chto verit Rossija. (Sanct-Peterburg, 1998), s. 93. Every 30 years all Krjashens have been recorded as Tatars. They were simply forgotten. Only recently, in 1999, were they officially restored in Russian Federation. Since the end of the 1980s the cultural and spiritual revival of the Krjashen people has been apparent.

{{note|12}}. G. Ibragimov. "Christianstvo u tzachurov" // Alpha i Omega # 1 (19) 1999, s. 177.

{{note|13}}. Long before him (in 1558) the Kabardian duke Saltan Idarov converted to Orthodoxy.

{{note|14}}. I. Bolova. Mozdokskije kabardintzy. (Stavropol, 2001).

{{note|15}}. E. Braida, C. Pelissetti. Storia de Rawh al-Qurasi. (Torino, 2001).

{{note|16}}. J.D. Sahas. "Hagiological texts as historical sources for Arab history and Byzantine-Muslim relations. The case of a barbarian saint" // Byzantine Studies (NS) ? 1-2 (1996-1997), pp. 50-59.

{{note|17}}. Y. Maximov. Svjatye Pravoslavnoj Tcerkvi, obrativshiesja iz islama. (Moscow, 2002), ss. 52-55.

{{note|18}}. Y. Maximov. Op. cit., ss. 56-63.

{{note|19}}. Y. Maximov. "Saint Serapion of Kozheozero: Former Muslim and founder of Kozheozersky Monastery" // Again, 2003.

{{note|20}}. N.M. Vaporis. Witnesses for Christ: Orthodox Christian Neomartyrs of the Ottoman Period, 1437-1860. (SVS Press, 2000), p. 103.

{{note|21}}. N.M. Vaporis. Op. cit., pp. 136-137.

{{note|22}}. N.M. Vaporis. Op. cit., pp. 324-328.

{{note|23}}. N.M. Vaporis. Op. cit., pp. 288-290.

Copyright © 2004 Yurij Maximov. Submitted by the author.

[[Category:Church History]]
[[Category:Orthodoxy and Islam]]
[[Category:Contributed Articles]]

Filioque

2010-04-08T18:22:43Z

CircularReason: redo title/link

'''''Filioque''''' is a Latin word meaning "and the Son" which was interpolated into the [[Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed]] by the [[Church of Rome]] in the 11th century, one of the major factors leading to the [[Great Schism]] between East and West. This inclusion in the Creedal article regarding the [[Holy Spirit]] thus states that the Spirit "proceeds from the Father '''''and the Son'''''."

The inclusion of the word in the Creed is a violation of the [[canons]] of the [[Third Ecumenical Council]] in 431, which forbade and [[anathema]]tized any additions to the Creed, a prohibition which was reiterated at the [[Eighth Ecumenical Council]] in 879-880.

Any addition to the wording of the Creed is either a merely verbal modification, or a doctrinal modification. Even doctrinal modification can be valid, if the modification is an extension of the truth. For instance, neither the word Filioque nor the Latin phrase "Deum de Deo" ("God from God") were included by the [[First Ecumenical Council|Council of Nicea]] nor of [[Second Ecumenical Council|Constantinople]. However, the latter was accepted as orthodox. The Filioque, on the other hand, violates the canons by virtue of doctrinal deviance rather than linguistic variance.

The term itself has been interpreted in both an Orthodox fashion and a heterodox fashion. It may be read as saying that the Spirit proceeds from the Father through (''dia'') the Son. This was the position of St [[Maximus the Confessor]], among others. [citation needed] On this reading, the Son is not an eternal cause (''aition'') of the Spirit. The heterodox reading taught by some Roman Catholics sees the Son, along with the Father, as an eternal cause of the Spirit. Most in the [[Orthodox Church]] consider this latter reading to be a [[heresy]].

The description of the ''filioque'' as a heresy was iterated most clearly and definitively by the great [[Church Fathers|Father]] and [[Pillars of Orthodoxy|Pillar]] of the Church, St. [[Photius the Great]], in his ''On the Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit''. Some in the West held an orthodox interpretation, and some in the East held the heterodox. Photius, addressing the arguments themselves, decries the heretical [[Triadology]] which strikes at the very heart of what the Church believes about God.

== History ==
===Early use of the ''Filioque''===
It is useful to note that a regional council in Persia in 410 introduced one of the earliest forms of the ''filioque'' in the Creed; the council specified that the Spirit proceeds from the Father "and from the Son." Coming from the rich theology of early East Syrian Christianity, this expression in this context is authentically Eastern. Therefore, the ''filioque'' cannot be attacked as a solely Western innovation, nor as something created by the Pope.

In the West, St. [[Augustine of Hippo]] taught that the Spirit came from the Father ''and'' the Son, though subordinate to neither. His theology was dominant in the West until the Middle Ages. Other Latin Fathers also spoke of the Spirit proceeding from both the Father and the Son. While familiar in the West, this way of speaking was virtually unknown in the Greek-speaking, Byzantine Empire.

Although the [[Second Ecumenical Council]] in 381 had expanded and completed the [[Nicene Creed]] begun at the [[First Ecumenical Council]], the [[Third Ecumenical Council]] (Ephesus, 431) had forbidden any further changes to the theology and/or wording of the Creed, except for by another [[Ecumenical Council]]. By this time, then, the text of the [[Nicene Creed]] had acquired a certain definitive authority, of ecumenical value and importance.

Rome received the [[Fourth Ecumenical Council]], which referred to preceding councils, citing the authority of the text of the Creed. However, at this time, central Italy was in a state of collapse. In 410 and 455, Rome was vandalized and sacked by barbarian invasions. In 476, the Western Roman Empire fell, with the exile of Romulus Augustulus, the last emperor.

The ''filioque'' was first used in Toledo, Spain in 587 without the consultation or agreement of the [[Pentarchy|five patriarchs]] of the [[Church]] at that time and in direct violation of [[canons]] of the [[Third Ecumenical Council]] that prohibited unilateral alteration of the Creed by anything short of another [[Ecumenical Council]]. The purpose of its addition in Spain was to counter a [[heresy]] that was local to that region, probably some form of [[Arianism]] brought there by the Goths (who had been missionized by the Arian bishop [[Wulfila]]). The practice spread then to France where it was repudiated at the Gentilly Council in 767.

After generations of social upheaval, strong leadership appeared in the person of Pepin the Short, king of the Franks, and his son, [[Charlemagne]], crowned as emperor in 800. Charlemagne intended to restore the Roman Empire in the West, with himself in charge, to the chagrin of the leaders of the Eastern Roman Empire. These he denigrated, labelling them "Greeks" (and, by implication, not-Romans), despite the Roman capital being in the East and the continued use by Easterners of ''Roman'' to describe themselves. Charlemagne called for a council at Aix-la-Chapelle in 809 at which Pope [[Leo III of Rome|Leo III]] forbade the use of the ''filioque'' clause and ordered that the original version of the [[Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed]] be engraved on silver tablets displayed at St. Peter's Basilica in Rome, apparently so that his conclusion would not be overturned in the future.

Some historians have suggested that the Franks in the 9th century pressured the Pope to adopt the ''filioque'' in order to drive a wedge between the Roman Church and the other patriarchates. Despite this action, the ''filioque'' had come into wide use in the West and became widely thought to be an integral part of the Creed, while Rome, renowned for its stability and conservatism, resisted. Similarly, unleavened bread had come to be thought of as normative for the [[Eucharist]]; diocesan priests were expected to be unmarried. In such cases, in the West, ancient tradition was forgotten. Contemporary usage was thought to be normative and authentic. In these matters of discipline, the influence of the Franks is certain. They intended to exalt Charlemagne, as the new Roman Emperor. The Catholic religion, as they knew it, was to be part of the package. Meanwhile, from c. 726 to 843, the Eastern Roman Empire, under the thumb of successive emperors, was dominated by the heresy of [[iconoclasm]]. Both Franks and Greeks, in their own way, departed from ancient tradition. Unlike the East, however, where iconoclasm was repudiated at the [[Seventh Ecumenical Council]] and the use of icons later confirmed by the [[Theodora (9th century empress)|Empress Theodora]], the West to date never recovered from its departure.

===The "Photian" Schism===
Within a couple of generations, in 858, a new situation came to pass. The Eastern Emperor Michael III removed [[Ignatius of Constantinople|Ignatius I]] as patriarch of Constantinople. The emperor replaced him with a layman, St. [[Photius the Great]], who was the first Imperial Secretary and Imperial Ambassador to Baghdad. However, Ignatius refused to bow to secular authority. Michael and Photius invited Pope [[Nicholas I of Rome]] to send legates to preside over a synod in Constantinople to settle the matter. With the council, the legates confirmed the patriarchate of Photius, much to Nicholas's chagrin, who then declared that they had "exceeded their authority."

In opposition to this removal of Ignatius, the bishop of Rome supported Ignatius as legitimate patriarch. Moreover, in violation to existing canons, Photius had been ordained to the office of bishop very quickly. Some scholarship suggests that violation of these canons was the main reason the bishop of Rome rejected the appointment of Photius, though other major actions by Nicholas to bolster his power and position as pope puts his intervention in Eastern ecclesiastical matters more firmly in the context of his general programme of the growth of papal monarchy.

Therefore, after the arrival of an embassy from Ignatius, in 862, Nicholas said that Photius was deposed, as well as the bishop who ordained him and all the clergy Photius had appointed. The sheer temerity of this action did not even generate a response from Constantinople. However, several years later in 867, Photius finally rejected the Pope's assertion, particularly because of the activities of Latin missionaries in Bulgaria, who were, as St. Photius says, turning the Orthodox Christians there away from their pure faith and leading them into [[heresy]]—most notably, the ''filioque''. Photius' response cited the ''filioque'' as proof that Rome had a habit of overstepping its proper limits.

In 867 and 869-70, synods in Rome and Constantinople (the [[Robber Council of 869-870]]) restored Ignatius to his position as patriarch and deposed Photius. In 877, after the death of Ignatius, Photius again resumed office, by order of the emperor and by the request of Ignatius himself, to whom Photius had been reconciled. In 879-880, he was officially restored to his see and the ''filioque'' effectively condemned by the [[Eighth Ecumenical Council]], a council at which papal legates participated and which the current pope, [[John VIII of Rome|John VIII]], eventually confirmed. He was deposed in 886 when Leo VI took over as emperor, who had had a dispute with his father and turned his animosity for his father toward one of his father's friends, Photius. Photius spent the rest of his life as a monk in exile in Armenia; he is revered by the Orthodox today as a [[saint]], one of the great [[Pillars of Orthodoxy]]. He was the first important [[theologian]] to accuse Rome of [[heresy]] in the matter of the ''filioque''.

===Rome capitulates to Filioquist pressure===
In the ninth century, Pope [[Leo III of Rome]] agreed with the ''filioque'' phrase theologically but was opposed to adopting it in Rome. In fact, Leo had the traditional text of the Creed, without the ''filioque'', displayed publicly, having the original text engraved on two silver tablets, at the tomb of St. [[Apostle Peter|Peter]]. In any case, during the time of Pope Leo's leadership, 795-816, there was no Creed at all in the Roman Mass.

Later, in 1014, the German Emperor Henry II of the Holy Roman Empire visited Rome for his coronation and found that the Creed was not used during the Mass. At his request, the bishop of Rome added the Creed, as it was known in the West with the ''filioque'', after the Gospel. This was the first time the Creed in the [[Mass]] at Rome.

Thus, over nearly six centuries, dispute over the ''filioque'' had not divided the Church definitively; for the most part, in spite of cultural and linguistic conflicts, the Eastern and Western Churches remained in [[full communion]].

In 1054, however, the argument contributed to the [[Great Schism]] of the East and West, and the West went so far as to accuse the East of heresy for not accepting the theology of the ''filioque''. There were many other issues involved, in large part based on misunderstandings between Greek and Latin traditions. In addition to the actual difference in wording and doctrine in the ''filioque'', a related issue was the right of the Pope to make a change in the [[Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed]] on his own for exclusive use in the Roman liturgy, apart from an [[Ecumenical Council]].

===Attempted reunions and the ''Filioque'' after the Schism===
In the thirteenth century, Roman saint [[Thomas Aquinas]] was one of the dominant Scholastic theologians. He dealt explicitly with the processions of the divine Persons in his ''Summa Theologica''. While the theology of Aquinas and other Scholastics was dominant in the Western Middle Ages, for all its apparent clarity and brilliance, it remains theology, not official [[Roman Catholic Church]] teaching.

In 1274, the Second [[Council of Lyons]] said that the [[Holy Spirit]] proceeds from the [[God the Father|Father]] and the [[Christ|Son]], in accord with the ''filioque'' in the contemporary Latin version of the [[Nicene Creed]]. Reconciliation with the East, through this council, did not last. Remembering the Crusaders' sack of Constantinople in 1204, Eastern Orthodox Christians did not want to be reconciled with the West in terms of capitulation to Latin [[Triadology]] and [[ecclesiology]]. In 1283, Patriarch [[John Beccus]], who supported reconciliation with the Latin Church, was forced to abdicate; reunion failed.

The Crusaders in question were the Venetians of the [[Fourth Crusade]], who had earlier been excommunicated for attacking other Christians. In 1204, they were avenging the slaughter of Venetian merchants, in rioting, that took place in 1182. Pope Innocent III had sent them a letter, asking them not to attack Constantinople; after hearing of the sack of the city, he lamented their action and disowned them. Nevertheless, the people of Constantinople had a deep hatred for the people they called the "Latins" or the "Franks," and of course the Western church's major "endowment" from the spoils carried away now still largely rests in the hands of the Vatican.

For much of the 14th century, there were two bishops, each claiming to be Pope, each excommunicating the followers of the other. The Great Western Schism concluded with yet a third individual claiming to be Pope and the Council of Constance. The East could hardly seek reconciliation with a Western Church divided against itself. (In the middle of the century, about a third of Western Europe died of the Black Death with no help from the East.)

At the [[Council of Florence]] in 1439, Emperor [[John VIII Palaeologus]], Patriarch Joseph of Constantinople, and other bishops from the East travelled to northern Italy in hope of reconciliation with the West, mainly in order to solicit military assistance to fend off the encroaching Turkish invaders. After extensive discussion, in Ferrara, then in Florence, they acknowledged that some Latin Fathers spoke of the procession of the Spirit differently from the Greek Fathers. Since the general consensus of the Fathers was held to be reliable, as a witness to common faith, the Western usage was held not to be a heresy and not a barrier to restoration of full communion. All the Eastern patriarchs bishops present, but one, agreed and signed a decree of union between East and West, ''Laetentur Coeli'' in 1439. The one bishop who refused to sign and was later heralded as a Pillar of Orthodoxy by the Church was St. [[Mark of Ephesus]], who followed in the footsteps of the previous Pillar of Orthodoxy, St. [[Photius the Great]].

Officially and publicly, the Roman churches and the Orthodox churches were back in communion. However, the reconciliation achieved at Florence was soon destroyed, founded as it was on a compromise of faith. Numerous Orthodox faithful and bishops rejected the union, saying that the council's teachings were incorrect and therefore not ecumenical. Moreover, after the Turks [[Fall of Constantinople|conquered Constantinople in 1453]], they fostered separation from the West, which remained an adversary to Islamic political and military dominance. Furthermore, the patriarch, Gennadius, was also one of the bishops who had repudiated the reunion of Florence on his own initiative.

Undeniably, the ''filioque'' controversy was at least officially resolved, for both Eastern Orthodox and Catholic Christians. However, because of the historical situation and because of the different ecclesiologies of the East and West, this resolution was neither fully received nor permanently sustained.

In December of 1452, a reunion [[Divine Liturgy|liturgy]] was held at [[Hagia Sophia (Constantinople)|Hagia Sophia]] in Constantinople at which the Pope's name was commemorated and the ''filioque'' used in the Creed; some clergy and laity boycotted it. On the evening of [[May 28]], 1453, however, another liturgy was held which also commemorated the Pope and used the ''filioque'', which was not boycotted.

===Recent discussions and statements===
Dialogue on this and other subjects is continuing. The ''filioque'' clause was the main subject discussed at the 62nd meeting of the [[North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation]], which met at [[Holy Cross Greek Orthodox School of Theology (Brookline, Massachusetts)]] from [[June 3]] through [[June 5]], 2002, for their spring session. As a result of these modern discussions, it has been suggested that the Orthodox could accept an "economic" ''filioque'' that states that the Holy Spirit, who originates in the Father alone, was sent to the Church "through the Son" (as the [[Paraclete]]), but this is not official Orthodox doctrine. It is what the Fathers call a ''[[theologoumenon]]'', a theological opinion. (Similarly, the late Edward Kilmartin, S.J., proposed as a ''theologoumenon'' a "mission" of the Holy Spirit to the Church.)

Recently, an important, agreed statement has been made by the North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation, on [[October 25]], 2003. This document ''The Filioque: A Church-Dividing Issue?'', provides an extensive review of [[Scripture]], history, and [[theology]]. Especially critical are the recommendations of this consultation, for example:

#That all involved in such dialogue expressly recognize the limitations of our ability to make definitive assertions about the inner life of God.
#That, in the future, because of the progress in mutual understanding that has come about in recent decades, Orthodox and Catholics refrain from labeling as heretical the traditions of the other side on the subject of the procession of the Holy Spirit.
#That Orthodox and Catholic theologians distinguish more clearly between the divinity and hypostatic identity of the Holy Spirit (which is a received [[dogma]] of our Churches) and the manner of the Spirit's origin, which still awaits full and final ecumenical resolution.
#That those engaged in dialogue on this issue distinguish, as far as possible, the theological issues of the origin of the Holy Spirit from the ecclesiological issues of primacy and doctrinal authority in the Church, even as we pursue both questions seriously, together.
#That the theological dialogue between our Churches also give careful consideration to the status of later councils held in both our Churches after those seven generally received as ecumenical.
#That the Catholic Church, as a consequence of the normative and irrevocable dogmatic value of the Creed of 381, use the original Greek text alone in making translations of that Creed for catechetical and liturgical use.
#That the Catholic Church, following a growing theological consensus, and in particular the statements made by Pope Paul VI, declare that the condemnation made at the Second Council of Lyons (1274) of those "who presume to deny that the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son" is no longer applicable.

In the judgment of the consultation, the question of the ''filioque'' is no longer a "Church-dividing" issue, one which would impede full reconciliation and full communion, once again. It still stands for the bishops and faithful of the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches to review this work and to make whatever decisions would be appropriate.

==The ''Filioque'' as heresy==
There has never been a specific conciliar statement in the Eastern [[Orthodox Church]]es that defined the ''filioque'' as [[heresy]]. That being said, however, it has been regarded as heretical by multiple Orthodox saints, including Ss. [[Photius the Great]], [[Mark of Ephesus]], and [[Gregory Palamas]] (the three Pillars of Orthodoxy). At the [[Third Ecumenical Council]] and the [[Eighth Ecumenical Council|"Photian" council of 879-880]] (both of which Rome ratified), all changes to the theology of the Creed are anathematized. It was explicitly denounced as heretical by the non-ecumenical, 1848 ''[[Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs]]''.

There are a number of reasons traditionally cited for the definition of the ''filioque'' as heretical, including the following:

===Objections on doctrinal grounds===
*It is contrary to Scripture, particularly in [[Gospel of John|John]] 15:26: "But when the Helper comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify of Me." Thus, Christ never describes the Holy Spirit as proceeding from himself, but only mentions the Spirit's procession in terms of the Father.

*The justifications for including the ''filioque'' in the Creed—bolstering the divinity of the Son and emphasizing the unity of the Trinity—are redundant, given the original wording of the Creed. That is, the Son already is described as "light of light, very God of very God," and so forth. The Spirit also "with the Father and Son together is worshiped and glorified." Additionally, the Creed itself begins with a statement of belief in "one God."

*Some misinterpret the ''filioque'' as distorting [[Triadology]] by making the Spirit a subordinate member of the Trinity. Traditional Triadology consists in the notion that for any given trait, it must be either common to all Persons of the Trinity or unique to one of them. Thus, Fatherhood is unique to the Father, while begottenness is unique to the Son, and procession unique to the Spirit. Godhood, however, is common to all, as is eternality, uncreatedness, and so forth. Positing that something can be shared by two Persons (i.e., being the source of the Spirit's procession) but not the other is to elevate those two Persons at the expense of the other. Thus, the balance of unity and diversity is destroyed. This interpretation does not, however, take into consideration the two kinds of procession believed by both Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Christians as expressed by St. Maximus the Confessor.

===Objections on canonical and historical grounds===
*Though not really a question of heresy, a common objection is to the means of interpolating the ''filioque'' into the Creed. That is, unlike the original adoption of the Creed at [[First Ecumenical Council|Nicea]] and its subsequent revision at [[Second Ecumenical Council|Constantinople]], the decision to interpolate the ''filioque'' into the Creed for use in the Latin Church was not done by an [[Ecumenical Council]]. Rather, it was initially inserted by the Third Synod of Toledo, Spain (589), to combat Arianism, which had arrived there from the East with the Goths.

*Rome resisted the inclusion of the ''filioque'' for centuries. Leo III, the Pope of Rome at the time the ''filioque'' began its history in Western theology, strongly advised against its inclusion, even though he agreed with the soundness and validity of the doctrine contained in ''filioque''.

==External links==
*[[Wikipedia:Filioque External Links: an Online Bibliography]]
*[http://www.geocities.com/trvalentine/orthodox/filioque.html Filioque Page], by Thomas Ross Valentine
*[http://www.romanity.org/htm/rom.17.en.the_filioque_in_the_dublin_agreed_statement_1984.01.htm The Filioque in the Dublin Agreed Statement 1984], by Fr. [[John S. Romanides]]
*[http://agrino.org/cyberdesert/Pelikan.htm The Filioque], by Prof. [[Jaroslav Pelikan]]
*[http://agrino.org/cyberdesert/meyendorf.htm On the Question of the Filioque], by Fr. [[John Meyendorff]]
*[http://agrino.org/cyberdesert/zizioulas.htm One Single Source], by Metr. [[John Zizioulas]]
*[http://www.energeticprocession.com/archives/Azkoul_filioque.pdf The Filioque: A Reply to the Agreed Statement of the North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation], by Fr. Michael Azkoul

[[Category:Church History]]
[[Category:Councils]]
[[Category:Creeds]]
[[Category:Ecumenical Councils]]
[[Category:Featured Articles]]
[[Category:Heresies]]

[[ro:Filioque]]

Filioque

2010-04-08T18:21:25Z

CircularReason: Wake up, MaximustheConfessor

'''''Filioque''''' is a Latin word meaning "and the Son" which was interpolated into the [[Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed]] by the [[Church of Rome]] in the 11th century, one of the major factors leading to the [[Great Schism]] between East and West. This inclusion in the Creedal article regarding the [[Holy Spirit]] thus states that the Spirit "proceeds from the Father '''''and the Son'''''."

The interpolation of the Filioque into the Creed is seen by Eastern Orthodox a violation of the [[canons]] of the [[Third Ecumenical Council]] in 431, which forbade and [[anathema]]tized any additions to the Creed, a prohibition which was reiterated at the [[Eighth Ecumenical Council]] in 879-880. The Eastern Orthodox, however, make no protest against the Latin interpolation "Deum de Deo" ("God from God") into the text of the Creed. The Filioque, like the phrase "Deum de Deo," was not included by neither the [[First Ecumenical Council|Council of Nicea]], nor [[Second Ecumenical Council|Constantinople]]. The term itself has been interpreted in both an orthodox fashion and wrongly in a heterodox fashion. It is read as saying that the Spirit proceeds from the Father through (''dia'') the Son; this was the position of St [[Maximus the Confessor]]. In this reading, the Son is not an eternal cause (''aition'') of the Spirit. The heterodox reading, which is not held by the Latin Church, sees the Son, along with the Father, as an eternal cause of the Spirit. Most in the Eastern [[Orthodox Church]]es consider this latter reading to be [[heresy]].

== History ==
===Early use of the ''Filioque''===
It is useful to note that a regional council in Persia in 410 introduced one of the earliest forms of the ''filioque'' in the Creed; the council specified that the Spirit proceeds from the Father "and from the Son." Coming from the rich theology of early East Syrian Christianity, this expression in this context is authentically Eastern. Therefore, the ''filioque'' cannot be attacked as a solely Western innovation, nor as something created by the Pope.

In the West, St. [[Augustine of Hippo]] taught that the Spirit came from the Father ''and'' the Son, though subordinate to neither. His theology was dominant in the West until the Middle Ages. Other Latin Fathers also spoke of the Spirit proceeding from both the Father and the Son. While familiar in the West, this way of speaking was virtually unknown in the Greek-speaking, Byzantine Empire.

Although the [[Second Ecumenical Council]] in 381 had expanded and completed the [[Nicene Creed]] begun at the [[First Ecumenical Council]], the [[Third Ecumenical Council]] (Ephesus, 431) had forbidden any further changes to the theology of the Creed, except for by another [[Ecumenical Council]]. By this time, then, the theology of the [[Nicene Creed]] had acquired a certain definitive authority, of ecumenical value and importance. Rome received the [[Fourth Ecumenical Council]], which referred to preceding councils, citing the authority of the theology of the Creed.

The ''filioque'' was first used in Toledo, Spain in 587 without the consultation or agreement of the [[Pentarchy|five patriarchs]] of the [[Church]] at that time and in direct violation of [[canons]] of the [[Third Ecumenical Council]] that prohibited unilateral alteration of the Creed by anything short of another [[Ecumenical Council]]. The purpose of its addition in Spain was to counter a [[heresy]] that was local to that region, probably some form of [[Arianism]] brought there from the East by the Goths (who had been missionized by the Arian bishop [[Wulfila]]). The practice spread then to France where it was repudiated at the Gentilly Council in 767.

After generations of social upheaval, strong leadership appeared in the person of Pepin the Short, king of the Franks, and his son, [[Charlemagne]], crowned as emperor in 800. Charlemagne intended to restore the Roman Empire in the West, with himself in charge, to the chagrin of the leaders of the Byzantine Empire. Charlemagne called for a council at Aix-la-Chapelle in 809 at which Pope [[Leo III of Rome|Leo III]] forbade the use of the ''filioque'' clause and ordered that the original version of the [[Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed]] be engraved on silver tablets displayed at St. Peter's Basilica in Rome. Despite this action, the ''filioque'' came into wide use in the West and became an integral part of the Creed, while Rome, renowned for its conservatism, resisted. Meanwhile, from c. 726 to 843, the Byzantine Empire, under the thumb of successive emperors, was dominated by the heresy of [[iconoclasm]].

===The "Photian" Schism===
Within a couple of generations, in 858, a new situation came to pass. The Byzantine Emperor Michael III removed [[Ignatius of Constantinople|Ignatius I]] as patriarch of Constantinople. The emperor replaced him with a layman, St. [[Photius the Great]], who was the first Imperial Secretary and Imperial Ambassador to Baghdad. However, Ignatius refused to bow to secular authority. Michael and Photius invited Pope [[Nicholas I of Rome]] to send legates to preside over a synod in Constantinople to settle the matter. With the council, the legates confirmed the patriarchate of Photius.

In opposition to this removal of Ignatius, the bishop of Rome supported Ignatius as legitimate patriarch. Moreover, violating existing canons, Photius had been ordained to the office of bishop very quickly. Some scholarship suggests that violation of these canons was the main reason the bishop of Rome rejected the appointment of Photius.

After the arrival of an embassy from Ignatius, in 862, Nicholas said that Photius was deposed, as well as the bishop who ordained him and all the clergy Photius had appointed. The sheer temerity of this action did not even generate a response from Constantinople. However, several years later in 867, Photius finally rejected the Pope's assertion, particularly because of the activities of Latin missionaries in Bulgaria, who were, as Photius claimed, turning the Christians there away from the faith and leading them into [[heresy]]. Photius' response cited the ''filioque'' as proof that Rome had a habit of overstepping its proper limits.

In 867 and 869-70, synods in Rome and Constantinople (the [[Robber Council of 869-870]]) restored Ignatius to his position as patriarch and deposed Photius. In 877, after the death of Ignatius, Photius again resumed office, by order of the emperor. In 879-880, he was officially restored to his see. He was deposed in 886 when Leo VI took over as emperor. Photius spent the rest of his life as a monk in exile in Armenia; he is revered by the Eastern Orthodox today as a [[saint]], one of the great [[Pillars of Orthodoxy]]. He was the first important [[theologian]] to accuse Rome of [[heresy]] in the matter of the ''filioque,'' although it was an accusation based on a false reading of the Latin understanding.

===Rome accepts Filioque as valid in Latin===
In the ninth century, Pope [[Leo III of Rome]] agreed with the ''filioque'' phrase theologically but was opposed to adopting it in Rome. In fact, Leo had the traditional text of the Creed, without the ''filioque'', displayed publicly, having the original text engraved on two silver tablets, at the tomb of St. [[Apostle Peter|Peter]]. In any case, during the time of Pope Leo's leadership, 795-816, there was no Creed at all in the Roman Mass.

Later, in 1014, the German Emperor Henry II of the Holy Roman Empire visited Rome for his coronation and found that the Creed was not used during the Mass. At his request, the bishop of Rome added the Creed, as it was known in the West with the ''filioque'', after the Gospel. This was the first time the Creed in the [[Mass]] at Rome.

Thus, over nearly six centuries, dispute over the ''filioque'' had not divided the Church definitively; for the most part, in spite of cultural and linguistic conflicts, the Eastern and Western Churches remained in [[full communion]].

In 1054, however, the argument contributed to the [[Great Schism]] of the East and West, and the West went so far as to accuse the East of heresy for not accepting the theology of the ''filioque''. There were many other issues involved, in large part based on misunderstandings between Greek and Latin traditions. In addition to the actual difference in wording and doctrine in the ''filioque'', a related issue was the right of the Pope to make a change in the [[Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed]] on his own for exclusive use in the Roman liturgy, apart from an [[Ecumenical Council]].

===Attempted reunions and the ''Filioque'' after the Schism===
In the thirteenth century, St. Thomas Aquinas was one of the dominant Scholastic theologians. He dealt explicitly with the processions of the divine Persons in his ''Summa Theologica''. While the theology of Aquinas and other Scholastics was dominant in the Western Middle Ages, for all its apparent clarity and brilliance, it remains theology, not official [[Roman Catholic Church]] teaching.

In 1274, the Second [[Council of Lyons]] said that the [[Holy Spirit]] proceeds from the [[God the Father|Father]] and the [[Christ|Son]], in accord with the ''filioque'' in the contemporary Latin version of the [[Nicene Creed]]. Reconciliation with the East, through this council, did not last. Remembering the Crusaders' sack of Constantinople in 1204, Eastern Orthodox Christians did not want to be reconciled with the West in terms of capitulation to Latin [[Triadology]] and [[ecclesiology]]. In 1283, Patriarch [[John Beccus]], who supported reconciliation with the Latin Church, was forced to abdicate; reunion failed.

The Crusaders in question were the Venetians of the [[Fourth Crusade]], who had earlier been excommunicated for attacking other Christians. In 1204, they were getting avenging the slaughter of Venetian merchants, in rioting, that took place in 1182. Pope Innocent III had sent them a letter, asking them not to attack Constantinople; after hearing of the sack of the city, he lamented their action and disowned them. Nevertheless, the people of Constantinople had a deep hatred for the people they called the "Latins" or the "Franks," even though the sack of Constantinople was done against the will of the Pope.

For much of the 14th century, there were two bishops, each claiming to be Pope, each excommunicating the followers of the other. The Great Western Schism concluded with yet a third individual claiming to be Pope and the Council of Constance. The East could hardly seek reconciliation with a Western Church divided against itself. (In the middle of the century, about a third of Western Europe died of the Black Death with no help from the East.)

At the [[Council of Florence]] in 1439, Emperor [[John VIII Palaeologus]], Patriarch Joseph of Constantinople, and other bishops from the East travelled to northern Italy in hope of reconciliation with the West. After extensive discussion in Ferrara, and then in Florence, they acknowledged that some Latin Fathers spoke of the procession of the Spirit differently from the Greek Fathers. Since the general consensus of the Fathers was held to be reliable, as a witness to common faith, the Western usage was held not to be a heresy and not a barrier to restoration of full communion. All the Eastern patriarchs and bishops, except [[Mark of Ephesus]] signed a decree of union between East and West, ''Laetentur Coeli'' in 1439.

Officially and publicly, the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches were back in communion. However, the reconciliation achieved at Florence was soon destroyed. Numerous Eastern Orthodox faithful and bishops rejected the union even though it was decided by an ecumenical council. Moreover, after the Turks [[Fall of Constantinople|conquered Constantinople in 1453]], they fostered separation from the West, which remained an adversary to Islamic political and military dominance.

Undeniably, the ''filioque'' controversy was at least officially resolved, for both Eastern Orthodox and Catholic Christians. However, because of the historical situation and because of the different ecclesiologies of the East and West, this resolution was neither fully received nor permanently sustained.

In December of 1452, a reunion [[Divine Liturgy|liturgy]] was held at [[Hagia Sophia (Constantinople)|Hagia Sophia]] in Constantinople at which the Pope's name was commemorated and the ''filioque'' used in the Creed; some clergy and laity boycotted it. On the evening of [[May 28]], 1453, however, another liturgy was held which also commemorated the Pope and used the ''filioque'', which was not boycotted.

===Recent discussions and statements===
Dialogue on this and other subjects is continuing. The ''filioque'' clause was the main subject discussed at the 62nd meeting of the [[North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation]], which met at [[Holy Cross Greek Orthodox School of Theology (Brookline, Massachusetts)]] from [[June 3]] through [[June 5]], 2002, for their spring session. As a result of these modern discussions, it has been suggested that the Orthodox could accept an "economic" ''filioque'' that states that the Holy Spirit, who originates in the Father alone, was sent to the Church "through the Son" (as the [[Paraclete]]), but this is not official Orthodox doctrine. It is what the Fathers call a ''[[theologoumenon]]'', a theological opinion. (Similarly, the late Edward Kilmartin, S.J., proposed as a ''theologoumenon'' a "mission" of the Holy Spirit to the Church.)

Recently, an important, agreed statement has been made by the North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation, on [[October 25]], 2003. This document ''The Filioque: A Church-Dividing Issue?'', provides an extensive review of [[Scripture]], history, and [[theology]]. Especially critical are the recommendations of this consultation, for example:

#That all involved in such dialogue expressly recognize the limitations of our ability to make definitive assertions about the inner life of God.
#That, in the future, because of the progress in mutual understanding that has come about in recent decades, Orthodox and Catholics refrain from labeling as heretical the traditions of the other side on the subject of the procession of the Holy Spirit.
#That Orthodox and Catholic theologians distinguish more clearly between the divinity and hypostatic identity of the Holy Spirit (which is a received [[dogma]] of our Churches) and the manner of the Spirit's origin, which still awaits full and final ecumenical resolution.
#That those engaged in dialogue on this issue distinguish, as far as possible, the theological issues of the origin of the Holy Spirit from the ecclesiological issues of primacy and doctrinal authority in the Church, even as we pursue both questions seriously, together.
#That the theological dialogue between our Churches also give careful consideration to the status of later councils held in both our Churches after those seven generally received as ecumenical.
#That the Catholic Church, as a consequence of the normative and irrevocable dogmatic value of the Creed of 381, use the original Greek text alone in making translations of that Creed for catechetical and liturgical use.
#That the Catholic Church, following a growing theological consensus, and in particular the statements made by Pope Paul VI, declare that the condemnation made at the Second Council of Lyons (1274) of those "who presume to deny that the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son" is no longer applicable.

In the judgment of the consultation, the question of the ''filioque'' is no longer a "Church-dividing" issue, one which would impede full reconciliation and full communion, once again. It still stands for the bishops and faithful of the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches to review this work and to make whatever decisions would be appropriate.

==The ''Filioque'' as heresy==
There has never been a specific conciliar statement in the Eastern [[Orthodox Church]]es that defined the ''filioque'' as [[heresy]]. That being said, however, it has been regarded as heretical by multiple Orthodox saints, including Ss. [[Photius the Great]], [[Mark of Ephesus]], and [[Gregory Palamas]] (the three Pillars of Orthodoxy). At the [[Third Ecumenical Council]] and the [[Eighth Ecumenical Council|"Photian" council of 879-880]] (both of which Rome ratified), all changes to the theology of the Creed are anathematized. It was explicitly denounced as heretical by the non-ecumenical, 1848 ''[[Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs]]''.

There are a number of reasons traditionally cited for the definition of the ''filioque'' as heretical, including the following:

===Objections on doctrinal grounds===
*It is contrary to Scripture, particularly in [[Gospel of John|John]] 15:26: "But when the Helper comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify of Me." Thus, Christ never describes the Holy Spirit as proceeding from himself, but only mentions the Spirit's procession in terms of the Father.

*The justifications for including the ''filioque'' in the Creed—bolstering the divinity of the Son and emphasizing the unity of the Trinity—are redundant, given the original wording of the Creed. That is, the Son already is described as "light of light, very God of very God," and so forth. The Spirit also "with the Father and Son together is worshiped and glorified." Additionally, the Creed itself begins with a statement of belief in "one God."

*Some misinterpret the ''filioque'' as distorting [[Triadology]] by making the Spirit a subordinate member of the Trinity. Traditional Triadology consists in the notion that for any given trait, it must be either common to all Persons of the Trinity or unique to one of them. Thus, Fatherhood is unique to the Father, while begottenness is unique to the Son, and procession unique to the Spirit. Godhood, however, is common to all, as is eternality, uncreatedness, and so forth. Positing that something can be shared by two Persons (i.e., being the source of the Spirit's procession) but not the other is to elevate those two Persons at the expense of the other. Thus, the balance of unity and diversity is destroyed. This interpretation does not, however, take into consideration the two kinds of procession believed by both Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Christians as expressed by St. Maximus the Confessor.

===Objections on canonical and historical grounds===
*Though not really a question of heresy, a common objection is to the means of interpolating the ''filioque'' into the Creed. That is, unlike the original adoption of the Creed at [[First Ecumenical Council|Nicea]] and its subsequent revision at [[Second Ecumenical Council|Constantinople]], the decision to interpolate the ''filioque'' into the Creed for use in the Latin Church was not done by an [[Ecumenical Council]]. Rather, it was initially inserted by the Third Synod of Toledo, Spain (589), to combat Arianism, which had arrived there from the East with the Goths.

*Rome resisted the inclusion of the ''filioque'' for centuries. Leo III, the Pope of Rome at the time the ''filioque'' began its history in Western theology, strongly advised against its inclusion, even though he agreed with the soundness and validity of the doctrine contained in ''filioque''.

==External links==
*[[Wikipedia:Filioque External Links: an Online Bibliography]]
*[http://www.geocities.com/trvalentine/orthodox/filioque.html Filioque Page], by Thomas Ross Valentine
*[http://www.romanity.org/htm/rom.17.en.the_filioque_in_the_dublin_agreed_statement_1984.01.htm The Filioque in the Dublin Agreed Statement 1984], by Fr. [[John S. Romanides]]
*[http://agrino.org/cyberdesert/Pelikan.htm The Filioque], by Prof. [[Jaroslav Pelikan]]
*[http://agrino.org/cyberdesert/meyendorf.htm On the Question of the Filioque], by Fr. [[John Meyendorff]]
*[http://agrino.org/cyberdesert/zizioulas.htm One Single Source], by Metr. [[John Zizioulas]]
*[http://www.energeticprocession.com/archives/Azkoul_filioque.pdf The Filioque: A Reply to the Agreed Statement of the North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation], by Fr. Michael Azkoul

[[Category:Church History]]
[[Category:Councils]]
[[Category:Creeds]]
[[Category:Ecumenical Councils]]
[[Category:Featured Articles]]
[[Category:Heresies]]

[[ro:Filioque]]

User:CircularReason

2010-04-08T08:29:54Z

CircularReason:

Hi, my online alias is CircularReason because [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/parmenides/#Pro Parmenides] points out that the One, which is the most reasonable thing of all, is like a sphere.

I'm a 27 year-old graduate student from Orange County, California (just outside Los Angeles). I grew up in the [http://www.vcfanaheim.com/cgi-bin/kingdomtools/ktpublic.rb Vineyard Christian Fellowship] under the pastoral guidance of John Wimber but left shortly after his death, when I had become disillusioned with the music-centered worship-style and the general ''ethos'' of the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Wave_of_the_Holy_Spirit third-wave charismatic] movement. I ended up visiting an Episcopalian church for several years (this was before the height of the homosexuality horrors), and God's grace finally lead me to the Ancient Faith. As a spiritual seeker, I got into transcendental meditation, investing heavily in the kind of American meditation taught by [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_Benson Herbert Benson M.D.], and the likes of [http://dnssearch.rr.com/?q=www.wccm.org&con=nxd John Main] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Keating Thomas Keating] -- all the best elements of which are inherent to the Orthodox tradition.

I studied History and Philosophy in a Great Books program at Biola University, and am now pursuing a Master's degree in Applied Orthodox Theology from St. Stephen's seminary in New Jersey. Meanwhile I teach high school (if leading Socratic discussions may be called "teaching"), write, mentor students for [http://www.wheatstoneacademy.com Wheatstone Academy], blog, and manage a formal Socratic book club for Christians of all denominations.

As a classically educated fellow, I lean heavily on [http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/history/ath-inc.htm#ch_0 old books] as a reliable source of wisdom, and I trust in the patient, careful, intelligent conversation to chip away my false opinions and lead me towards the truth.

User:CircularReason

2010-04-08T08:11:00Z

CircularReason: New page: Hi, my online alias is CircularReason because Parmenides points out that the One, which is the most reasonable thing of all, is like a sphere. I'm a 27 year-old graduate student from Ora...

Hi, my online alias is CircularReason because Parmenides points out that the One, which is the most reasonable thing of all, is like a sphere.

I'm a 27 year-old graduate student from Orange County, California (just outside Los Angeles). I grew up in the Vineyard Community Church but left when I became disillusioned with the music-centered worship style and the general ethos of the charismatic movement. I ended up visiting an Episcopalian church for several years before discovering the Ancient Faith. I also got into the American Transcendental meditation community, investing heavily in daily meditation taught by Herbert Benson M.D., and the likes of John Main and Thomas Keating, all the best elements of which are inherent to the Orthodox tradition.

I studied History and Philosophy in a Great Books program at Biola University, and am now pursuing a Master's degree in Applied Orthodox Theology from St. Stephen's seminary in New Jersey. Meanwhile I teach high school (if leading Socratic discussions may be called "teaching"), write, blog, and manage a formal Socratic book club for Christians of all denominations.

As a classically educated fellow, I lean heavily on [http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/history/ath-inc.htm#ch_0 old books] as a reliable source of wisdom, and I trust in the patient, careful, intelligent conversation to chip away my false opinions and lead me towards the truth.

Talk:Filioque

2010-04-08T07:56:42Z

CircularReason: /* Pro-Filioquist, Pro-Roman Hijacks */

I originally imported this from Wikipedia, but it seems to me that this article needs a major reworking, if not replacement. Its rhetoric is pretty convoluted and unclear. --[[User:ASDamick|Rdr. Andrew]] 19:50, 1 Feb 2005 (CST)

Update: It has, indeed, been significantly reworked! ——[[User:ASDamick|Dcn. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Randompage|random]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] 12:39, 4 Jul 2005 (EDT)

I'd like to do a bit of a rework on this article to make it more encyclopedic and formal in tone. But I don't want to step on anyone's toes. Unless anyone objects, I'll take a stab at some point soon. --[[User:Jeffholton|Jeff]] 16:57, 2 Apr 2008 (PDT)

==No Basilique?==
The article said:

Charlemagne called for a council at Aix-la-Chapelle in 809 at which Pope Leo III forbade the use of the filioque clause and ordered that the original version of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed be engraved on silver tablets displayed at St. Peter's Basilica in Rome so that his conclusion would not be overturned in the future.

But in at that time there was no "St. Peter's Basilica".

_________________________

As far as I know there was. The building made from indulgence money in 15 - 16th C was not first, but replaced one which had been tottering. Since St Peter was crucified on Collis Vaticanus, it would have been remarkable, had there not been built a Basilica after the peace of St Constantine.

By the way: remarkable too that Pope Leo III of Rome forbids something as far away from his own diocese as Aix-la-Chapelle, is it not?

/Hans
:As for St. Peter's Basilica, I agree with Hans. The current one was built after the previous one had been burned. The first Basilica under this name was built soon after the peace of St. Constantine. Even in this time, this Basilica had been known by its magnificence.
:"Pope Leo III said something from Aix-la-Chapelle (or Amiens, the place of Frankish court) sounds a bit strange, but it could happen. In 799 he refuged to the Frankish court over the Alps. But I have no idea what is the fact on this matter. --[[User:Cat68|Cat68]] 23:13, February 26, 2007 (PST)

--[[User:Cat68|Cat68]] 23:13, February 26, 2007 (PST)

==Misspelling?==
Do you think it's really necessary to include a misspelled version? It seems that could set a somewhat awkward precedent. I don't see that sort of thing in any encyclopedia with which I'm familiar. ——[[User:ASDamick|Dcn. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Randompage|random]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] 12:39, 4 Jul 2005 (EDT)

: Rdr. Andrew, Please feel free to change anything I do. Let me say...I don't know you in the flesh, but have come to appreciate you and your leadership. Maybe the way to approach this is to insert it somewhere in the text or redirect a filoque page to filioque. I just know that this is a very common misspelling (I've done it!). Whatever the community sees fit to do. Maybe we should start something in the style manual about how to address misspellings. --[[User:Joe Rodgers|{{User:Joe Rodgers/sig}}]] 13:05, 4 Jul 2005 (EDT)

::I don't think we should put in redirects for misspellings - I don't think it makes the site that much more usable, and such redirects could too easily multiply. Besides, why not just let people learn to spell the words in question correctly? [[User:FrJohn|Fr. John]]

:::Yes, I thought that the redirect issue could get out of hand. This is why I thought to include the misspelling on the page. --[[User:Joe Rodgers|{{User:Joe Rodgers/sig}}]] 14:11, 4 Jul 2005 (EDT)

:Perhaps the ''Misspellings'' section could be removed, and the sentence "''Filioque'' may be misspelled as ''filoque''." added to the very end of the first paragraph? Especially in an article of this magnitude, giving a such a brief section to misspellings seems out of balance. —[[User:Magda|magda]] 19:31, 5 Jul 2005 (EDT)

: Ah yes, here is where the discussion was. Filoque is a common misspelling. I guess I thought we could be indexed by search engines and it would point them in the right direction. I still don't know how important this is, but I care. Joe 16:19 26 Nov 2005

::Hmm... the search engine thing is an interesting consideration. Maybe we could put in misspellings in comments, so they don't show for people, but they could for search engines. E.g. at the bottom of the page, near the Categories, we could put <nowiki></nowiki> and so on? What do other folks think about that idea?

[[wikipedia:Wikipedia_talk:Merging_and_moving_pages#Redirecting_from_a_misspelling|This comment]] provides more to think about as well. I like the idea of commenting in misspellings rather than giving them a more prominent place. Any other ideas? I, for one, need to look up "Irene" to find [[Irene Chrysovalantou]], as I can never remember how the monastery's name is spelled. {{User:Magda/sig}} 15:39, November 26, 2005 (CST)

==Conciliar condemnation==
"''There has never been a specific '''conciliar''' statement in the Orthodox Church which defined the filioque as heresy''" ... except that of The [[Eighth Ecumenical Council]], offcourse ... [[User:Luci83ro|Luci83ro]] 09:47, July 28, 2006 (CDT)

: That synod did not define the ''filioque'' as heresy but rather forbid alteration to the Creed. In effect, this precludes the ''filioque'', but it does not define it specifically as heresy, which would instead have involved a standard formula such as "To any who teach that the Spirit proceeds from the Son as well as from the Father, anathema." —[[User:ASDamick|Dcn. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Randompage|random]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] 10:24, July 28, 2006 (CDT)

Why was the Council of Lyons not an Ecumenical Council? Russians and probably Egyptians did not attend, but there were some countries not represented at the Council of Nicea too. Andronicus of Constantinople later repudiated the Council of Lyons, but was it at the time, 1274-1283, ecumenical? [[User:Rakovsky|Rakovsky]] 08:31, June 19, 2009 (UTC)

== Which filioque? ==

There are at least two separate issues concerning the filioque. The first is its unlawful addition the the Symbol. On this I don't believe there is any good argument to be made for its inclusion. We might term this issue the "canonical" one.

The second issue is the "dogmatic" one. Is the teaaching of the filioque orthodox or heterodox? That depends upon which understanding of the fiolioque one has in mind. A distinction must be made between the heterodox filioque (the teaching that the Spirit is dependent upon the Son as well as the Father for his origin) and the orthodox filioque (the perfectly Orthodox idea that the Spirit proceeds from the Father through (''dia'') the Son. The latter was taught by St Maximos Confessor and is Orthodox. The former is definitely heterodox. I would shy away from terming it "heretical" in that no council has defined it as such. --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 10:44, July 28, 2006 (CDT)
:Please excuse me for asking You this rather silly question, but ... I'm a ''little'' bit confused here: What, ''then'', is "heterodox, (yet not heretical)"? (Do You mean by this an opinion? -- if so, then St. Maximos the Confessor is ''heterodox'', because, in the Church, to say that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father through the Son is only a theologumenon ... or not). [[User:Luci83ro|Luci83ro]] 12:10, July 28, 2006 (CDT)

:: I think the distinction that Fr. Lev is making is that something which is [[heterodoxy|heterodox]] is definitely against the Orthodox faith, whereas something which is [[heresy|heretical]] has been subject to an explicit synodal condemnation of anathema.

:: A [[theologoumenon]] is a theological opinion which is not contrary to the Orthodox faith but has not been dogmatized by the Church. —[[User:ASDamick|Dcn. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Randompage|random]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] 13:22, July 28, 2006 (CDT)

:::Okay. That was very enlightening, I have to admit. And thank You very much for Your prompt response, Father. But I still can't help myself at asking yet another ''Silly question #2a'': how is something "against, or contrary to, the Orthodox faith", yet "''not'' condemned" by the very same Orthodoxy that it contradicts? And yet another ''Silly question #2b'': how does Orthodoxy not contradict something that contradicts Orthodoxy? [[User:Luci83ro|Luci83ro]] 13:50, July 28, 2006 (CDT)

::::Conciliar condemnations are not issued simply because a heterodox teaching arises. There needs to be a sort of "critical mass" of controversy in order for a synod to meet and issue an anathema. If, for instance, a local parishioner had a few bizarre ideas about the Church, they may never affect anyone but for a few of his fellow parishioners. If, however, a bishop began teaching something heterodox and instructed all his priests to do the same, gaining support from outside his diocese, as well, that would be a clear case for a synodal condemnation (assuming, of course, that the heterodoxy isn't something already covered by previous anathema).

::::In short, anathemas really are for pastoral necessity in the Church body, not to keep every person doctrinally pure in every expressed opinion. —[[User:ASDamick|Dcn. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Randompage|random]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] 20:54, July 28, 2006 (CDT)

I think the distinction is rather straightforward. A heresy is a teaching that the Orthodox Church has formally condemned as theological error. Presumably there are many, many heterodox claims that have been made that the Church has never formally condemned. Part of what I was saying before is that the notion of "filioque" is patient of an Orthodox interpretation, as when St Maximos Confessor speaks of the Spirit proceeding "through" the Son. One need not take it in the heterodox sense of taking the Son to be a second, eteranl cause of the Spirit. --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 20:22, July 28, 2006 (CDT)

:"''Conciliar condemnations are not issued simply because a heterodox teaching arises. There needs to be a sort of '''"critical mass" of controversy''' in order for a synod to meet and issue an anathema''" ... So, in other words, all the (over) 1,000,000,000 Catholics in the world (all of which are professing the ''heterodox'' Filioque) do ''not'' constitute a <<"critical mass" of controversy>>.
:"''the notion of "filioque" is patient of an Orthodox interpretation, as when St Maximos Confessor speaks of the Spirit proceeding "through" the Son. One need not take it in the heterodox sense of taking the Son to be a second, eternal cause of the Spirit''" -- no, one doesn't need to, ... but, unfortunately, <<one>> does ... <<one>> being the Catholic Church, consisting out of over a '''b'''ilion believers.
:(Isn't it a little bit curious that this has been told to them by St. Mark of Ephesus some over 500 years ago, ... yet still they insisted, and ''insisted'', and '''insisted''' that this DOES mean the ETERNAL procession ... and they very much '''still''' do, now, after half a millenium, ... and don't, in their '''wildest''' dreams, think of making our <<through>> to corrupt their <<and>> -- but, instead, they want it to work the other way around, in spite of a millenium of dialogue??) [[User:Luci83ro|Luci83ro]] 09:36, July 29, 2006 (CDT)

Two points. First, it simply isn't true that all Roman Catholics believe in the heterodox reading of the filioque. In addition to ones I've spoken who reject such a reading, one need only read the Vatican declaration on the filiqoue to see that there are at least some Roman Catholics (at the official level, no less) that reject the idea that the Son is an eternal cause of the Spirit. While the document isn't as clear as it could be (see the commentary by Metropolitan John [Zizioulas] of Pergamon that is readily available on the web), it ''is'' clear that the spirit of the document isn't heretical or heterodox. It represents an attempt to come to terms with what similarities and differences there are between the language of the Symbol of Constantinople and pre-Schism Western theology. Second, the language of the Spirit's procession from the Father through the Son isn't unique to St Maximos Confessor -- we find it in St Basil, the first great theologian of the Holy Spirit, and in St John Damascene, who sought to summarize the teaching of the Church. In other, one finds this Orthodox reading of filioque in the heart of our tradition. A final, personal note: I vigorously reject the heterodox filioque, and I vigorously believe that the word must be removed from the Western translations of the Symbol if there is to be reconciliation between East and West. Further dialogue is needed to bring the theology of the Spirt to greater clarity in the teaching of our Churches. But for our part, we must resist the temptation to simply dismiss our Roman Catholic brothers and sisters as "heretics."--[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 10:25, July 29, 2006 (CDT)

:I've read the thing You were talking about, Father (long time ago), and ... let's just say that I wasn't "impressed" by it. It was simply a re-affirmation of the same old thing (a SICK interpretation of the "through" -- the same for over 1,000 years, "nothing new under the Sun", as the wise man said; TWISTED missinterpretations of Bible-passages having '''nothing''' to do with the subject under discussion -- "because 'one' got high"; and, at the end, the "cherry on the cake" : "offcourse, we should not drop out any ''eternal'' relationship between the Son and the Holy Ghost" -- and, somehow, I'm under the impression that simple consubstantiality between the 3 Persons wasn't quite what they meant by it ...) [[User:Luci83ro|Luci83ro]] 11:02, July 29, 2006 (CDT)

:: There are also many Protestants in the world who teach various heterodox things, as well as non-Christians. The question is whether it is a controversy within the Church. Generally speaking, with the longstanding state of schism that exists between Rome and the Orthodox Church, it may be said with some confidence that controversy over the ''filioque'' does not exist within the Orthodox Church.

:: In any event, the historical reality is that there has not been a conciliar anamethatization of the ''filioque''. Whether there ought to be or not is perhaps another matter, but up until the present time, it hasn't happened. —[[User:ASDamick|Dcn. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Randompage|random]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] 11:19, July 29, 2006 (CDT)

==Early Filioque==
Check out Sts Hilary of Poitiers and Athanasius the Great on Scripture Catholic site

:Why? What's "Scripture Catholic site" and do you have a link? Thanks, — [[User:FrJohn|FrJohn]] ([http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/User_talk:FrJohn&action=edit&section=new talk])

== Pro-Filioquist, Pro-Roman Hijacks ==

MaximustheConfessor has been adding conspicuously anti-Orthodox biased materials to this article.

I undid most of his work, but kept some of his neutral or "acceptable" (in my opinion) edits.

He seems to misunderstand that this is an ''Orthodox'' Wiki, not Roman Catholic.

The [[OrthodoxWiki]] article states: "Orthodoxwiki purposes to present the Orthodox Christian viewpoint throughout the site. Articles on OrthodoxWiki will be, so far as is reasonably possible, worded from a neutral point of view (NPOV). That is, disputes between Orthodox Christian groups will be characterized and described rather than entered into.)

For instance, he changed "Thomas Aquinas" to "St. Thomas Aquinas." This is a clearly Roman bias. Thomas of Aquino is a philosopher, an academic theologian, a scholastic -- but not an Orthodox Saint.

Furthermore, he baldly claims that Roman Catholics do not hold "a heterodox interpretation of the filioque." Such a claim is so close to false it is hardly controversial -- but let's be charitable; it is highly controversial at the very least.

He consistently rewrites "Eastern Roman Empire" as "Byzantine Empire", as if "Byzantine" were a kind of insult, or as if Constantine the Emperor had failed to include the East in the Roman Empire.

Again, Orthodox Wiki says, "[This site is] a place for Orthodox Christians to share their knowledge and perspectives." Roman Catholics or ecumenists who view the differences between East and West as non-fundamental are welcome to read and to edit, but they are not welcome to hijack the site to their own bias. Correct me if I am wrong.

I move that MaximustheConfessor's ambitious edits are misguided, and that they should cease.

Thanks for your time. -CircularReason

User talk:CircularReason

2010-04-08T07:36:53Z

CircularReason: New page: My online alias is CircularReason, and I'm a 27 year-old graduate student from Los Angeles, California. I studied History and Philosophy at Biola University. I am currently a seminary st...

My online alias is CircularReason, and I'm a 27 year-old graduate student from Los Angeles, California.

I studied History and Philosophy at Biola University. I am currently a seminary student pursuing a Master's in Applied Orthodox Theology from St. Stephen's in New Jersey.

Classically educated at the Torrey Honors Institute, I trust in reading [http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/history/ath-inc.htm#ch_0 old books] and using careful, intelligent, and patient dialectical conversation in the pursuit of wisdom.

I teach high school (if leading Socratic discussions can be called "teaching"), blog, lead a book club, and generally pursue the examined life.

Talk:Filioque

2010-04-08T07:12:39Z

CircularReason: /* Pro-Filioquist, Pro-Roman Hijacks */ new section

Filioque

2010-04-08T06:48:02Z

CircularReason:

'''''Filioque''''' is a Latin word meaning "and the Son" which was interpolated into the [[Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed]] by the [[Church of Rome]] in the 11th century, one of the major factors leading to the [[Great Schism]] between East and West. This inclusion in the Creedal article regarding the [[Holy Spirit]] thus states that the Spirit "proceeds from the Father '''''and the Son'''''."

The inclusion of the word in the Creed is a violation of the [[canons]] of the [[Third Ecumenical Council]] in 431, which forbade and [[anathema]]tized any additions to the Creed, a prohibition which was reiterated at the [[Eighth Ecumenical Council]] in 879-880.

Any addition to the wording of the Creed is either a merely verbal modification, or a doctrinal modification. Even doctrinal modification can be valid, if the modification is an extension of the truth. For instance, neither the word Filioque nor the Latin phrase "Deum de Deo" ("God from God") were included by the [[First Ecumenical Council|Council of Nicea]] nor of [[Second Ecumenical Council|Constantinople]. However, the latter was accepted as orthodox. The Filioque, on the other hand, violates the canons by virtue of doctrinal deviance rather than linguistic variance.

The term itself has been interpreted in both an Orthodox fashion and a heterodox fashion. It may be read as saying that the Spirit proceeds from the Father through (''dia'') the Son. This was the position of St [[Maximus the Confessor]], among others. [citation needed] On this reading, the Son is not an eternal cause (''aition'') of the Spirit. The heterodox reading taught by some Roman Catholics sees the Son, along with the Father, as an eternal cause of the Spirit. Most in the [[Orthodox Church]] consider this latter reading to be a [[heresy]].

The description of the ''filioque'' as a heresy was iterated most clearly and definitively by the great [[Church Fathers|Father]] and [[Pillars of Orthodoxy|Pillar]] of the Church, St. [[Photius the Great]], in his ''On the Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit''. Some in the West held an orthodox interpretation, and some in the East held the heterodox. Photius, addressing the arguments themselves, decries the heretical [[Triadology]] which strikes at the very heart of what the Church believes about God.

== History ==
===Early use of the ''Filioque''===
It is useful to note that a regional council in Persia in 410 introduced one of the earliest forms of the ''filioque'' in the Creed; the council specified that the Spirit proceeds from the Father "and from the Son." Coming from the rich theology of early East Syrian Christianity, this expression in this context is authentically Eastern. Therefore, the ''filioque'' cannot be attacked as a solely Western innovation, nor as something created by the Pope.

In the West, St. [[Augustine of Hippo]] taught that the Spirit came from the Father ''and'' the Son, though subordinate to neither. His theology was dominant in the West until the Middle Ages. Other Latin Fathers also spoke of the Spirit proceeding from both the Father and the Son. While familiar in the West, this way of speaking was virtually unknown in the Greek-speaking, Byzantine Empire.

Although the [[Second Ecumenical Council]] in 381 had expanded and completed the [[Nicene Creed]] begun at the [[First Ecumenical Council]], the [[Third Ecumenical Council]] (Ephesus, 431) had forbidden any further changes to the theology and/or wording of the Creed, except for by another [[Ecumenical Council]]. By this time, then, the text of the [[Nicene Creed]] had acquired a certain definitive authority, of ecumenical value and importance.

Rome received the [[Fourth Ecumenical Council]], which referred to preceding councils, citing the authority of the text of the Creed. However, at this time, central Italy was in a state of collapse. In 410 and 455, Rome was vandalized and sacked by barbarian invasions. In 476, the Western Roman Empire fell, with the exile of Romulus Augustulus, the last emperor.

The ''filioque'' was first used in Toledo, Spain in 587 without the consultation or agreement of the [[Pentarchy|five patriarchs]] of the [[Church]] at that time and in direct violation of [[canons]] of the [[Third Ecumenical Council]] that prohibited unilateral alteration of the Creed by anything short of another [[Ecumenical Council]]. The purpose of its addition in Spain was to counter a [[heresy]] that was local to that region, probably some form of [[Arianism]] brought there by the Goths (who had been missionized by the Arian bishop [[Wulfila]]). The practice spread then to France where it was repudiated at the Gentilly Council in 767.

After generations of social upheaval, strong leadership appeared in the person of Pepin the Short, king of the Franks, and his son, [[Charlemagne]], crowned as emperor in 800. Charlemagne intended to restore the Roman Empire in the West, with himself in charge, to the chagrin of the leaders of the Eastern Roman Empire. These he denigrated, labelling them "Greeks" (and, by implication, not-Romans), despite the Roman capital being in the East and the continued use by Easterners of ''Roman'' to describe themselves. Charlemagne called for a council at Aix-la-Chapelle in 809 at which Pope [[Leo III of Rome|Leo III]] forbade the use of the ''filioque'' clause and ordered that the original version of the [[Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed]] be engraved on silver tablets displayed at St. Peter's Basilica in Rome, apparently so that his conclusion would not be overturned in the future.

Some historians have suggested that the Franks in the 9th century pressured the Pope to adopt the ''filioque'' in order to drive a wedge between the Roman Church and the other patriarchates. Despite this action, the ''filioque'' had come into wide use in the West and became widely thought to be an integral part of the Creed, while Rome, renowned for its stability and conservatism, resisted. Similarly, unleavened bread had come to be thought of as normative for the [[Eucharist]]; diocesan priests were expected to be unmarried. In such cases, in the West, ancient tradition was forgotten. Contemporary usage was thought to be normative and authentic. In these matters of discipline, the influence of the Franks is certain. They intended to exalt Charlemagne, as the new Roman Emperor. The Catholic religion, as they knew it, was to be part of the package. Meanwhile, from c. 726 to 843, the Eastern Roman Empire, under the thumb of successive emperors, was dominated by the heresy of [[iconoclasm]]. Both Franks and Greeks, in their own way, departed from ancient tradition. Unlike the East, however, where iconoclasm was repudiated at the [[Seventh Ecumenical Council]] and the use of icons later confirmed by the [[Theodora (9th century empress)|Empress Theodora]], the West to date never recovered from its departure.

===The "Photian" Schism===
Within a couple of generations, in 858, a new situation came to pass. The Eastern Emperor Michael III removed [[Ignatius of Constantinople|Ignatius I]] as patriarch of Constantinople. The emperor replaced him with a layman, St. [[Photius the Great]], who was the first Imperial Secretary and Imperial Ambassador to Baghdad. However, Ignatius refused to bow to secular authority. Michael and Photius invited Pope [[Nicholas I of Rome]] to send legates to preside over a synod in Constantinople to settle the matter. With the council, the legates confirmed the patriarchate of Photius, much to Nicholas's chagrin, who then declared that they had "exceeded their authority."

In opposition to this removal of Ignatius, the bishop of Rome supported Ignatius as legitimate patriarch. Moreover, in violation to existing canons, Photius had been ordained to the office of bishop very quickly. Some scholarship suggests that violation of these canons was the main reason the bishop of Rome rejected the appointment of Photius, though other major actions by Nicholas to bolster his power and position as pope puts his intervention in Eastern ecclesiastical matters more firmly in the context of his general programme of the growth of papal monarchy.

Therefore, after the arrival of an embassy from Ignatius, in 862, Nicholas said that Photius was deposed, as well as the bishop who ordained him and all the clergy Photius had appointed. The sheer temerity of this action did not even generate a response from Constantinople. However, several years later in 867, Photius finally rejected the Pope's assertion, particularly because of the activities of Latin missionaries in Bulgaria, who were, as St. Photius says, turning the Orthodox Christians there away from their pure faith and leading them into [[heresy]]—most notably, the ''filioque''. Photius' response cited the ''filioque'' as proof that Rome had a habit of overstepping its proper limits.

In 867 and 869-70, synods in Rome and Constantinople (the [[Robber Council of 869-870]]) restored Ignatius to his position as patriarch and deposed Photius. In 877, after the death of Ignatius, Photius again resumed office, by order of the emperor and by the request of Ignatius himself, to whom Photius had been reconciled. In 879-880, he was officially restored to his see and the ''filioque'' effectively condemned by the [[Eighth Ecumenical Council]], a council at which papal legates participated and which the current pope, [[John VIII of Rome|John VIII]], eventually confirmed. He was deposed in 886 when Leo VI took over as emperor, who had had a dispute with his father and turned his animosity for his father toward one of his father's friends, Photius. Photius spent the rest of his life as a monk in exile in Armenia; he is revered by the Orthodox today as a [[saint]], one of the great [[Pillars of Orthodoxy]]. He was the first important [[theologian]] to accuse Rome of [[heresy]] in the matter of the ''filioque''.

===Rome capitulates to Filioquist pressure===
In the ninth century, Pope [[Leo III of Rome]] agreed with the ''filioque'' phrase theologically but was opposed to adopting it in Rome. In fact, Leo had the traditional text of the Creed, without the ''filioque'', displayed publicly, having the original text engraved on two silver tablets, at the tomb of St. [[Apostle Peter|Peter]]. In any case, during the time of Pope Leo's leadership, 795-816, there was no Creed at all in the Roman Mass.

Later, in 1014, the German Emperor Henry II of the Holy Roman Empire visited Rome for his coronation and found that the Creed was not used during the Mass. At his request, the bishop of Rome added the Creed, as it was known in the West with the ''filioque'', after the Gospel. This was the first time the Creed in the [[Mass]] at Rome.

Thus, over nearly six centuries, dispute over the ''filioque'' had not divided the Church definitively; for the most part, in spite of cultural and linguistic conflicts, the Eastern and Western Churches remained in [[full communion]].

In 1054, however, the argument contributed to the [[Great Schism]] of the East and West, and the West went so far as to accuse the East of heresy for not accepting the theology of the ''filioque''. There were many other issues involved, in large part based on misunderstandings between Greek and Latin traditions. In addition to the actual difference in wording and doctrine in the ''filioque'', a related issue was the right of the Pope to make a change in the [[Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed]] on his own for exclusive use in the Roman liturgy, apart from an [[Ecumenical Council]].

===Attempted reunions and the ''Filioque'' after the Schism===
In the thirteenth century, philosophical theologian and Roman saint Thomas Aquinas was one of the dominant Scholastic theologians. He dealt explicitly with the processions of the divine Persons in his ''Summa Theologica''. While the theology of Aquinas and other Scholastics was dominant in the Western Middle Ages, for all its apparent clarity and brilliance, it remains theology, not official [[Roman Catholic Church]] teaching.

In 1274, the Second [[Council of Lyons]] said that the [[Holy Spirit]] proceeds from the [[God the Father|Father]] and the [[Christ|Son]], in accord with the ''filioque'' in the contemporary Latin version of the [[Nicene Creed]]. Reconciliation with the East, through this council, did not last. Remembering the Crusaders' sack of Constantinople in 1204, Eastern Orthodox Christians did not want to be reconciled with the West in terms of capitulation to Latin [[Triadology]] and [[ecclesiology]]. In 1283, Patriarch [[John Beccus]], who supported reconciliation with the Latin Church, was forced to abdicate; reunion failed.

The Crusaders in question were the Venetians of the [[Fourth Crusade]], who had earlier been excommunicated for attacking other Christians. In 1204, they were avenging the slaughter of Venetian merchants, in rioting, that took place in 1182. Pope Innocent III had sent them a letter, asking them not to attack Constantinople; after hearing of the sack of the city, he lamented their action and disowned them. Nevertheless, the people of Constantinople had a deep hatred for the people they called the "Latins" or the "Franks," and of course the Western church's major "endowment" from the spoils carried away now still largely rests in the hands of the Vatican.

For much of the 14th century, there were two bishops, each claiming to be Pope, each excommunicating the followers of the other. The Great Western Schism concluded with yet a third individual claiming to be Pope and the Council of Constance. The East could hardly seek reconciliation with a Western Church divided against itself. (In the middle of the century, about a third of Western Europe died of the Black Death with no help from the East.)

At the [[Council of Florence]] in 1439, Emperor [[John VIII Palaeologus]], Patriarch Joseph of Constantinople, and other bishops from the East travelled to northern Italy in hope of reconciliation with the West, mainly in order to solicit military assistance to fend off the encroaching Turkish invaders. After extensive discussion, in Ferrara, then in Florence, they acknowledged that some Latin Fathers spoke of the procession of the Spirit differently from the Greek Fathers. Since the general consensus of the Fathers was held to be reliable, as a witness to common faith, the Western usage was held not to be a heresy and not a barrier to restoration of full communion. All the Eastern patriarchs bishops present, but one, agreed and signed a decree of union between East and West, ''Laetentur Coeli'' in 1439. The one bishop who refused to sign and was later heralded as a Pillar of Orthodoxy by the Church was St. [[Mark of Ephesus]], who followed in the footsteps of the previous Pillar of Orthodoxy, St. [[Photius the Great]].

Officially and publicly, the Roman churches and the Orthodox churches were back in communion. However, the reconciliation achieved at Florence was soon destroyed, founded as it was on a compromise of faith. Numerous Orthodox faithful and bishops rejected the union, saying that the council's teachings were incorrect and therefore not ecumenical. Moreover, after the Turks [[Fall of Constantinople|conquered Constantinople in 1453]], they fostered separation from the West, which remained an adversary to Islamic political and military dominance. Furthermore, the patriarch, Gennadius, was also one of the bishops who had repudiated the reunion of Florence on his own initiative.

Undeniably, the ''filioque'' controversy was at least officially resolved, for both Eastern Orthodox and Catholic Christians. However, because of the historical situation and because of the different ecclesiologies of the East and West, this resolution was neither fully received nor permanently sustained.

In December of 1452, a reunion [[Divine Liturgy|liturgy]] was held at [[Hagia Sophia (Constantinople)|Hagia Sophia]] in Constantinople at which the Pope's name was commemorated and the ''filioque'' used in the Creed; some clergy and laity boycotted it. On the evening of [[May 28]], 1453, however, another liturgy was held which also commemorated the Pope and used the ''filioque'', which was not boycotted.

===Recent discussions and statements===
Dialogue on this and other subjects is continuing. The ''filioque'' clause was the main subject discussed at the 62nd meeting of the [[North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation]], which met at [[Holy Cross Greek Orthodox School of Theology (Brookline, Massachusetts)]] from [[June 3]] through [[June 5]], 2002, for their spring session. As a result of these modern discussions, it has been suggested that the Orthodox could accept an "economic" ''filioque'' that states that the Holy Spirit, who originates in the Father alone, was sent to the Church "through the Son" (as the [[Paraclete]]), but this is not official Orthodox doctrine. It is what the Fathers call a ''[[theologoumenon]]'', a theological opinion. (Similarly, the late Edward Kilmartin, S.J., proposed as a ''theologoumenon'' a "mission" of the Holy Spirit to the Church.)

Recently, an important, agreed statement has been made by the North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation, on [[October 25]], 2003. This document ''The Filioque: A Church-Dividing Issue?'', provides an extensive review of [[Scripture]], history, and [[theology]]. Especially critical are the recommendations of this consultation, for example:

#That all involved in such dialogue expressly recognize the limitations of our ability to make definitive assertions about the inner life of God.
#That, in the future, because of the progress in mutual understanding that has come about in recent decades, Orthodox and Catholics refrain from labeling as heretical the traditions of the other side on the subject of the procession of the Holy Spirit.
#That Orthodox and Catholic theologians distinguish more clearly between the divinity and hypostatic identity of the Holy Spirit (which is a received [[dogma]] of our Churches) and the manner of the Spirit's origin, which still awaits full and final ecumenical resolution.
#That those engaged in dialogue on this issue distinguish, as far as possible, the theological issues of the origin of the Holy Spirit from the ecclesiological issues of primacy and doctrinal authority in the Church, even as we pursue both questions seriously, together.
#That the theological dialogue between our Churches also give careful consideration to the status of later councils held in both our Churches after those seven generally received as ecumenical.
#That the Catholic Church, as a consequence of the normative and irrevocable dogmatic value of the Creed of 381, use the original Greek text alone in making translations of that Creed for catechetical and liturgical use.
#That the Catholic Church, following a growing theological consensus, and in particular the statements made by Pope Paul VI, declare that the condemnation made at the Second Council of Lyons (1274) of those "who presume to deny that the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son" is no longer applicable.

In the judgment of the consultation, the question of the ''filioque'' is no longer a "Church-dividing" issue, one which would impede full reconciliation and full communion, once again. It still stands for the bishops and faithful of the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches to review this work and to make whatever decisions would be appropriate.

==The ''Filioque'' as heresy==
There has never been a specific conciliar statement in the Eastern [[Orthodox Church]]es that defined the ''filioque'' as [[heresy]]. That being said, however, it has been regarded as heretical by multiple Orthodox saints, including Ss. [[Photius the Great]], [[Mark of Ephesus]], and [[Gregory Palamas]] (the three Pillars of Orthodoxy). At the [[Third Ecumenical Council]] and the [[Eighth Ecumenical Council|"Photian" council of 879-880]] (both of which Rome ratified), all changes to the theology of the Creed are anathematized. It was explicitly denounced as heretical by the non-ecumenical, 1848 ''[[Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs]]''.

There are a number of reasons traditionally cited for the definition of the ''filioque'' as heretical, including the following:

===Objections on doctrinal grounds===
*It is contrary to Scripture, particularly in [[Gospel of John|John]] 15:26: "But when the Helper comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify of Me." Thus, Christ never describes the Holy Spirit as proceeding from himself, but only mentions the Spirit's procession in terms of the Father.

*The justifications for including the ''filioque'' in the Creed—bolstering the divinity of the Son and emphasizing the unity of the Trinity—are redundant, given the original wording of the Creed. That is, the Son already is described as "light of light, very God of very God," and so forth. The Spirit also "with the Father and Son together is worshiped and glorified." Additionally, the Creed itself begins with a statement of belief in "one God."

*Some misinterpret the ''filioque'' as distorting [[Triadology]] by making the Spirit a subordinate member of the Trinity. Traditional Triadology consists in the notion that for any given trait, it must be either common to all Persons of the Trinity or unique to one of them. Thus, Fatherhood is unique to the Father, while begottenness is unique to the Son, and procession unique to the Spirit. Godhood, however, is common to all, as is eternality, uncreatedness, and so forth. Positing that something can be shared by two Persons (i.e., being the source of the Spirit's procession) but not the other is to elevate those two Persons at the expense of the other. Thus, the balance of unity and diversity is destroyed. This interpretation does not, however, take into consideration the two kinds of procession believed by both Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Christians as expressed by St. Maximus the Confessor.

===Objections on canonical and historical grounds===
*Though not really a question of heresy, a common objection is to the means of interpolating the ''filioque'' into the Creed. That is, unlike the original adoption of the Creed at [[First Ecumenical Council|Nicea]] and its subsequent revision at [[Second Ecumenical Council|Constantinople]], the decision to interpolate the ''filioque'' into the Creed for use in the Latin Church was not done by an [[Ecumenical Council]]. Rather, it was initially inserted by the Third Synod of Toledo, Spain (589), to combat Arianism, which had arrived there from the East with the Goths.

*Rome resisted the inclusion of the ''filioque'' for centuries. Leo III, the Pope of Rome at the time the ''filioque'' began its history in Western theology, strongly advised against its inclusion, even though he agreed with the soundness and validity of the doctrine contained in ''filioque''.

==External links==
*[[Wikipedia:Filioque External Links: an Online Bibliography]]
*[http://www.geocities.com/trvalentine/orthodox/filioque.html Filioque Page], by Thomas Ross Valentine
*[http://www.romanity.org/htm/rom.17.en.the_filioque_in_the_dublin_agreed_statement_1984.01.htm The Filioque in the Dublin Agreed Statement 1984], by Fr. [[John S. Romanides]]
*[http://agrino.org/cyberdesert/Pelikan.htm The Filioque], by Prof. [[Jaroslav Pelikan]]
*[http://agrino.org/cyberdesert/meyendorf.htm On the Question of the Filioque], by Fr. [[John Meyendorff]]
*[http://agrino.org/cyberdesert/zizioulas.htm One Single Source], by Metr. [[John Zizioulas]]
*[http://www.energeticprocession.com/archives/Azkoul_filioque.pdf The Filioque: A Reply to the Agreed Statement of the North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation], by Fr. Michael Azkoul

[[Category:Church History]]
[[Category:Councils]]
[[Category:Creeds]]
[[Category:Ecumenical Councils]]
[[Category:Featured Articles]]
[[Category:Heresies]]

[[ro:Filioque]]

Filioque

2010-04-08T06:35:54Z

CircularReason: Undo revision 92305 by Maximustheconfessor (Talk)

'''''Filioque''''' is a Latin word meaning "and the Son" which was interpolated into the [[Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed]] by the [[Church of Rome]] in the 11th century, one of the major factors leading to the [[Great Schism]] between East and West. This inclusion in the Creedal article regarding the [[Holy Spirit]] thus states that the Spirit "proceeds from the Father '''''and the Son'''''."

The inclusion of the word in the Creed is a violation of the [[canons]] of the [[Third Ecumenical Council]] in 431, which forbade and [[anathema]]tized any additions to the Creed, a prohibition which was reiterated at the [[Eighth Ecumenical Council]] in 879-880.

The addition must be either a merely verbal modification, or a fully verbal and doctrinal modification. If doctrinal, then it is either an extension of the truth, or a corruption of the truth. The filioque primarily violates the canons by virtue of doctrinal doctrine deviance, rather than linguistic variance. The word was not included by the [[First Ecumenical Council|Council of Nicea]] nor of [[Second Ecumenical Council|Constantinople]], nor was another phrase, "Deum de Deo" ("God from God"); the latter was accepted as orthodox, whereas the former was not.

The term itself has been interpreted in both an Orthodox fashion and a heterodox fashion. It may be read as saying that the Spirit proceeds from the Father through (''dia'') the Son. This was the position of St [[Maximus the Confessor]], among others. [citation needed] On this reading, the Son is not an eternal cause (''aition'') of the Spirit. The heterodox reading taught sees the Son, along with the Father, as an eternal cause of the Spirit. Most in the [[Orthodox Church]] consider this latter reading to be a [[heresy]].

The description of the ''filioque'' as a heresy was iterated most clearly and definitively by the great [[Church Fathers|Father]] and [[Pillars of Orthodoxy|Pillar]] of the Church, St. [[Photius the Great]], in his ''On the Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit''. Some in the West held an orthodox interpretation, and some in the East held the heterodox. Photius, addressing the arguments themselves, decries the heretical [[Triadology]] which strikes at the very heart of what the Church believes about God.

== History ==
===Early use of the ''Filioque''===
It is useful to note that a regional council in Persia in 410 introduced one of the earliest forms of the ''filioque'' in the Creed; the council specified that the Spirit proceeds from the Father "and from the Son." Coming from the rich theology of early East Syrian Christianity, this expression in this context is authentically Eastern. Therefore, the ''filioque'' cannot be attacked as a solely Western innovation, nor as something created by the Pope.

In the West, St. [[Augustine of Hippo]] taught that the Spirit came from the Father ''and'' the Son, though subordinate to neither. His theology was dominant in the West until the Middle Ages. Other Latin fathers also spoke of the Spirit proceeding from both the Father and the Son. While familiar in the West, this way of speaking was virtually unknown in the Greek-speaking, Byzantine Empire.

Although the [[Second Ecumenical Council]] in 381 had expanded and completed the [[Nicene Creed]] begun at the [[First Ecumenical Council]], the [[Third Ecumenical Council]] (Ephesus, 431) had forbidden any further changes to the theology and/or wording of the Creed, except for by another [[Ecumenical Council]]. By this time, then, the text of the [[Nicene Creed]] had acquired a certain definitive authority, of ecumenical value and importance.

Rome received the [[Fourth Ecumenical Council]], which referred to preceding councils, citing the authority of the text of the Creed. However, at this time, central Italy was in a state of collapse. In 410 and 455, Rome was vandalized and sacked by barbarian invasions. In 476, the Western Roman Empire fell, with the exile of Romulus Augustulus, the last emperor.

The ''filioque'' was first used in Toledo, Spain in 587 without the consultation or agreement of the [[Pentarchy|five patriarchs]] of the [[Church]] at that time and in direct violation of [[canons]] of the [[Third Ecumenical Council]] that prohibited unilateral alteration of the Creed by anything short of another [[Ecumenical Council]]. The purpose of its addition in Spain was to counter a [[heresy]] that was local to that region, probably some form of [[Arianism]] brought there by the Goths (who had been missionized by the Arian bishop [[Wulfila]]). The practice spread then to France where it was repudiated at the Gentilly Council in 767.

After generations of social upheaval, strong leadership appeared in the person of Pepin the Short, king of the Franks, and his son, [[Charlemagne]], crowned as emperor in 800. Charlemagne intended to restore the Roman Empire in the West, with himself in charge, to the chagrin of the leaders of the Eastern Roman Empire. These he denigrated, labelling them "Greeks" (and, by implication, not-Romans), despite the Roman capital being in the East and the continued use by Easterners of ''Roman'' to describe themselves. Charlemagne called for a council at Aix-la-Chapelle in 809 at which Pope [[Leo III of Rome|Leo III]] forbade the use of the ''filioque'' clause and ordered that the original version of the [[Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed]] be engraved on silver tablets displayed at St. Peter's Basilica in Rome, apparently so that his conclusion would not be overturned in the future.

Some historians have suggested that the Franks in the 9th century pressured the Pope to adopt the ''filioque'' in order to drive a wedge between the Roman Church and the other patriarchates. Despite this action, the ''filioque'' had come into wide use in the West and became widely thought to be an integral part of the Creed, while Rome, renowned for its stability and conservatism, resisted. Similarly, unleavened bread had come to be thought of as normative for the [[Eucharist]]; diocesan priests were expected to be unmarried. In such cases, in the West, ancient tradition was forgotten. Contemporary usage was thought to be normative and authentic. In these matters of discipline, the influence of the Franks is certain. They intended to exalt Charlemagne, as the new Roman Emperor. The Catholic religion, as they knew it, was to be part of the package. Meanwhile, from c. 726 to 843, the Eastern Roman Empire, under the thumb of successive emperors, was dominated by the heresy of [[iconoclasm]]. Both Franks and Greeks, in their own way, departed from ancient tradition. Unlike the East, however, where iconoclasm was repudiated at the [[Seventh Ecumenical Council]] and the use of icons later confirmed by the [[Theodora (9th century empress)|Empress Theodora]], the West to date never recovered from its departure.

===The "Photian" Schism===
Within a couple of generations, in 858, a new situation came to pass. The Eastern Emperor Michael III removed [[Ignatius of Constantinople|Ignatius I]] as patriarch of Constantinople. The emperor replaced him with a layman, St. [[Photius the Great]], who was the first Imperial Secretary and Imperial Ambassador to Baghdad. However, Ignatius refused to bow to secular authority. Michael and Photius invited Pope [[Nicholas I of Rome]] to send legates to preside over a synod in Constantinople to settle the matter. With the council, the legates confirmed the patriarchate of Photius, much to Nicholas's chagrin, who then declared that they had "exceeded their authority."

In opposition to this removal of Ignatius, the bishop of Rome supported Ignatius as legitimate patriarch. Moreover, in violation to existing canons, Photius had been ordained to the office of bishop very quickly. Some scholarship suggests that violation of these canons was the main reason the bishop of Rome rejected the appointment of Photius, though other major actions by Nicholas to bolster his power and position as pope puts his intervention in Eastern ecclesiastical matters more firmly in the context of his general programme of the growth of papal monarchy.

Therefore, after the arrival of an embassy from Ignatius, in 862, Nicholas said that Photius was deposed, as well as the bishop who ordained him and all the clergy Photius had appointed. The sheer temerity of this action did not even generate a response from Constantinople. However, several years later in 867, Photius finally rejected the Pope's assertion, particularly because of the activities of Latin missionaries in Bulgaria, who were, as St. Photius says, turning the Orthodox Christians there away from their pure faith and leading them into [[heresy]]—most notably, the ''filioque''. Photius' response cited the ''filioque'' as proof that Rome had a habit of overstepping its proper limits.

In 867 and 869-70, synods in Rome and Constantinople (the [[Robber Council of 869-870]]) restored Ignatius to his position as patriarch and deposed Photius. In 877, after the death of Ignatius, Photius again resumed office, by order of the emperor and by the request of Ignatius himself, to whom Photius had been reconciled. In 879-880, he was officially restored to his see and the ''filioque'' effectively condemned by the [[Eighth Ecumenical Council]], a council at which papal legates participated and which the current pope, [[John VIII of Rome|John VIII]], eventually confirmed. He was deposed in 886 when Leo VI took over as emperor, who had had a dispute with his father and turned his animosity for his father toward one of his father's friends, Photius. Photius spent the rest of his life as a monk in exile in Armenia; he is revered by the Orthodox today as a [[saint]], one of the great [[Pillars of Orthodoxy]]. He was the first important [[theologian]] to accuse Rome of [[heresy]] in the matter of the ''filioque''.

===Rome capitulates to Filioquist pressure===
In the ninth century, Pope [[Leo III of Rome]] agreed with the ''filioque'' phrase theologically but was opposed to adopting it in Rome. In fact, Leo had the traditional text of the Creed, without the ''filioque'', displayed publicly, having the original text engraved on two silver tablets, at the tomb of St. [[Apostle Peter|Peter]]. In any case, during the time of Pope Leo's leadership, 795-816, there was no Creed at all in the Roman Mass.

Later, in 1014, the German Emperor Henry II of the Holy Roman Empire visited Rome for his coronation and found that the Creed was not used during the Mass. At his request, the bishop of Rome added the Creed, as it was known in the West with the ''filioque'', after the Gospel. This was the first time the Creed in the [[Mass]] at Rome.

Thus, over nearly six centuries, dispute over the ''filioque'' had not divided the Church definitively; for the most part, in spite of cultural and linguistic conflicts, the Eastern and Western Churches remained in [[full communion]].

In 1054, however, the argument contributed to the [[Great Schism]] of the East and West, and the West went so far as to accuse the East of heresy for not accepting the theology of the ''filioque''. There were many other issues involved, in large part based on misunderstandings between Greek and Latin traditions. In addition to the actual difference in wording and doctrine in the ''filioque'', a related issue was the right of the Pope to make a change in the [[Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed]] on his own for exclusive use in the Roman liturgy, apart from an [[Ecumenical Council]].

===Attempted reunions and the ''Filioque'' after the Schism===
In the thirteenth century, philosophical theologian and Roman saint Thomas Aquinas was one of the dominant Scholastic theologians. He dealt explicitly with the processions of the divine Persons in his ''Summa Theologica''. While the theology of Aquinas and other Scholastics was dominant in the Western Middle Ages, for all its apparent clarity and brilliance, it remains theology, not official [[Roman Catholic Church]] teaching.

In 1274, the Second [[Council of Lyons]] said that the [[Holy Spirit]] proceeds from the [[God the Father|Father]] and the [[Christ|Son]], in accord with the ''filioque'' in the contemporary Latin version of the [[Nicene Creed]]. Reconciliation with the East, through this council, did not last. Remembering the Crusaders' sack of Constantinople in 1204, Eastern Orthodox Christians did not want to be reconciled with the West in terms of capitulation to Latin [[Triadology]] and [[ecclesiology]]. In 1283, Patriarch [[John Beccus]], who supported reconciliation with the Latin Church, was forced to abdicate; reunion failed.

The Crusaders in question were the Venetians of the [[Fourth Crusade]], who had earlier been excommunicated for attacking other Christians. In 1204, they were avenging the slaughter of Venetian merchants, in rioting, that took place in 1182. Pope Innocent III had sent them a letter, asking them not to attack Constantinople; after hearing of the sack of the city, he lamented their action and disowned them. Nevertheless, the people of Constantinople had a deep hatred for the people they called the "Latins" or the "Franks," and of course the Western church's major "endowment" from the spoils carried away now still largely rests in the hands of the Vatican.

For much of the 14th century, there were two bishops, each claiming to be Pope, each excommunicating the followers of the other. The Great Western Schism concluded with yet a third individual claiming to be Pope and the Council of Constance. The East could hardly seek reconciliation with a Western Church divided against itself. (In the middle of the century, about a third of Western Europe died of the Black Death with no help from the East.)

At the [[Council of Florence]] in 1439, Emperor [[John VIII Palaeologus]], Patriarch Joseph of Constantinople, and other bishops from the East travelled to northern Italy in hope of reconciliation with the West, mainly in order to solicit military assistance to fend off the encroaching Turkish invaders. After extensive discussion, in Ferrara, then in Florence, they acknowledged that some Latin Fathers spoke of the procession of the Spirit differently from the Greek Fathers. Since the general consensus of the Fathers was held to be reliable, as a witness to common faith, the Western usage was held not to be a heresy and not a barrier to restoration of full communion. All the Eastern patriarchs bishops present, but one, agreed and signed a decree of union between East and West, ''Laetentur Coeli'' in 1439. The one bishop who refused to sign and was later heralded as a Pillar of Orthodoxy by the Church was St. [[Mark of Ephesus]], who followed in the footsteps of the previous Pillar of Orthodoxy, St. [[Photius the Great]].

Officially and publicly, the Roman and the Orthodox Church were back in communion. However, the reconciliation achieved at Florence was soon destroyed, founded as it was on a compromise of faith. Numerous Orthodox faithful and bishops rejected the union, saying that the council's teachings were incorrect and therefore not ecumenical. Moreover, after the Turks [[Fall of Constantinople|conquered Constantinople in 1453]], they fostered separation from the West, which remained an adversary to Islamic political and military dominance. Furthermore, the patriarch, Gennadius, was also one of the bishops who had repudiated the reunion of Florence on his own initiative.

Undeniably, the ''filioque'' controversy was at least officially resolved, for both Eastern Orthodox and Catholic Christians. However, because of the historical situation and because of the different ecclesiologies of the East and West, this resolution was neither fully received nor permanently sustained.

In December of 1452, a reunion [[Divine Liturgy|liturgy]] was held at [[Hagia Sophia (Constantinople)|Hagia Sophia]] in Constantinople at which the Pope's name was commemorated and the ''filioque'' used in the Creed; some clergy and laity boycotted it. On the evening of [[May 28]], 1453, however, another liturgy was held which also commemorated the Pope and used the ''filioque'', which was not boycotted.

===Recent discussions and statements===
Dialogue on this and other subjects is continuing. The ''filioque'' clause was the main subject discussed at the 62nd meeting of the [[North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation]], which met at [[Holy Cross Greek Orthodox School of Theology (Brookline, Massachusetts)]] from [[June 3]] through [[June 5]], 2002, for their spring session. As a result of these modern discussions, it has been suggested that the Orthodox could accept an "economic" ''filioque'' that states that the Holy Spirit, who originates in the Father alone, was sent to the Church "through the Son" (as the [[Paraclete]]), but this is not official Orthodox doctrine. It is what the Fathers call a ''[[theologoumenon]]'', a theological opinion. (Similarly, the late Edward Kilmartin, S.J., proposed as a ''theologoumenon'' a "mission" of the Holy Spirit to the Church.)

Recently, an important, agreed statement has been made by the North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation, on [[October 25]], 2003. This document ''The Filioque: A Church-Dividing Issue?'', provides an extensive review of [[Scripture]], history, and [[theology]]. Especially critical are the recommendations of this consultation, for example:

#That all involved in such dialogue expressly recognize the limitations of our ability to make definitive assertions about the inner life of God.
#That, in the future, because of the progress in mutual understanding that has come about in recent decades, Orthodox and Catholics refrain from labeling as heretical the traditions of the other side on the subject of the procession of the Holy Spirit.
#That Orthodox and Catholic theologians distinguish more clearly between the divinity and hypostatic identity of the Holy Spirit (which is a received [[dogma]] of our Churches) and the manner of the Spirit's origin, which still awaits full and final ecumenical resolution.
#That those engaged in dialogue on this issue distinguish, as far as possible, the theological issues of the origin of the Holy Spirit from the ecclesiological issues of primacy and doctrinal authority in the Church, even as we pursue both questions seriously, together.
#That the theological dialogue between our Churches also give careful consideration to the status of later councils held in both our Churches after those seven generally received as ecumenical.
#That the Catholic Church, as a consequence of the normative and irrevocable dogmatic value of the Creed of 381, use the original Greek text alone in making translations of that Creed for catechetical and liturgical use.
#That the Catholic Church, following a growing theological consensus, and in particular the statements made by Pope Paul VI, declare that the condemnation made at the Second Council of Lyons (1274) of those "who presume to deny that the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son" is no longer applicable.

In the judgment of the consultation, the question of the ''filioque'' is no longer a "Church-dividing" issue, one which would impede full reconciliation and full communion, once again. It still stands for the bishops and faithful of the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches to review this work and to make whatever decisions would be appropriate.

==The ''Filioque'' as heresy==
There has never been a specific conciliar statement in the Eastern [[Orthodox Church]]es that defined the ''filioque'' as [[heresy]]. That being said, however, it has been regarded as heretical by multiple Orthodox saints, including Ss. [[Photius the Great]], [[Mark of Ephesus]], and [[Gregory Palamas]] (the three Pillars of Orthodoxy). At the [[Third Ecumenical Council]] and the [[Eighth Ecumenical Council|"Photian" council of 879-880]] (both of which Rome ratified), all changes to the theology of the Creed are anathematized. It was explicitly denounced as heretical by the non-ecumenical, 1848 ''[[Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs]]''.

There are a number of reasons traditionally cited for the definition of the ''filioque'' as heretical, including the following:

===Objections on doctrinal grounds===
*It is contrary to Scripture, particularly in [[Gospel of John|John]] 15:26: "But when the Helper comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify of Me." Thus, Christ never describes the Holy Spirit as proceeding from himself, but only mentions the Spirit's procession in terms of the Father.

*The justifications for including the ''filioque'' in the Creed—bolstering the divinity of the Son and emphasizing the unity of the Trinity—are redundant, given the original wording of the Creed. That is, the Son already is described as "light of light, very God of very God," and so forth. The Spirit also "with the Father and Son together is worshiped and glorified." Additionally, the Creed itself begins with a statement of belief in "one God."

*Some misinterpret the ''filioque'' as distorting [[Triadology]] by making the Spirit a subordinate member of the Trinity. Traditional Triadology consists in the notion that for any given trait, it must be either common to all Persons of the Trinity or unique to one of them. Thus, Fatherhood is unique to the Father, while begottenness is unique to the Son, and procession unique to the Spirit. Godhood, however, is common to all, as is eternality, uncreatedness, and so forth. Positing that something can be shared by two Persons (i.e., being the source of the Spirit's procession) but not the other is to elevate those two Persons at the expense of the other. Thus, the balance of unity and diversity is destroyed. This interpretation does not, however, take into consideration the two kinds of procession believed by both Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Christians as expressed by St. Maximus the Confessor.

===Objections on canonical and historical grounds===
*Though not really a question of heresy, a common objection is to the means of interpolating the ''filioque'' into the Creed. That is, unlike the original adoption of the Creed at [[First Ecumenical Council|Nicea]] and its subsequent revision at [[Second Ecumenical Council|Constantinople]], the decision to interpolate the ''filioque'' into the Creed for use in the Latin Church was not done by an [[Ecumenical Council]]. Rather, it was initially inserted by the Third Synod of Toledo, Spain (589), to combat Arianism, which had arrived there from the East with the Goths.

*Rome resisted the inclusion of the ''filioque'' for centuries. Leo III, the Pope of Rome at the time the ''filioque'' began its history in Western theology, strongly advised against its inclusion, even though he agreed with the soundness and validity of the doctrine contained in ''filioque''.

==External links==
*[[Wikipedia:Filioque External Links: an Online Bibliography]]
*[http://www.geocities.com/trvalentine/orthodox/filioque.html Filioque Page], by Thomas Ross Valentine
*[http://www.romanity.org/htm/rom.17.en.the_filioque_in_the_dublin_agreed_statement_1984.01.htm The Filioque in the Dublin Agreed Statement 1984], by Fr. [[John S. Romanides]]
*[http://agrino.org/cyberdesert/Pelikan.htm The Filioque], by Prof. [[Jaroslav Pelikan]]
*[http://agrino.org/cyberdesert/meyendorf.htm On the Question of the Filioque], by Fr. [[John Meyendorff]]
*[http://agrino.org/cyberdesert/zizioulas.htm One Single Source], by Metr. [[John Zizioulas]]
*[http://www.energeticprocession.com/archives/Azkoul_filioque.pdf The Filioque: A Reply to the Agreed Statement of the North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation], by Fr. Michael Azkoul

[[Category:Church History]]
[[Category:Councils]]
[[Category:Creeds]]
[[Category:Ecumenical Councils]]
[[Category:Featured Articles]]
[[Category:Heresies]]

[[ro:Filioque]]

Filioque

2010-04-07T05:22:53Z

CircularReason: Added back in some of MaximustheConfessor's good or neutral edits

'''''Filioque''''' is a Latin word meaning "and the Son" which was interpolated into the [[Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed]] by the [[Church of Rome]] in the 11th century, one of the major factors leading to the [[Great Schism]] between East and West. This inclusion in the Creedal article regarding the [[Holy Spirit]] thus states that the Spirit "proceeds from the Father '''''and the Son'''''."

The inclusion of the word in the Creed is a violation of the [[canons]] of the [[Third Ecumenical Council]] in 431, which forbade and [[anathema]]tized any additions to the Creed, a prohibition which was reiterated at the [[Eighth Ecumenical Council]] in 879-880.

The addition must be either a merely verbal modification, or a fully verbal and doctrinal modification. If doctrinal, then it is either an extension of the truth, or a corruption of the truth. The filioque primarily violates the canons by virtue of doctrinal doctrine deviance, rather than linguistic variance. The word was not included by the [[First Ecumenical Council|Council of Nicea]] nor of [[Second Ecumenical Council|Constantinople]], nor was another phrase, "Deum de Deo" ("God from God"); the latter was accepted as orthodox, whereas the former was not.

The term itself has been interpreted in both an Orthodox fashion and a heterodox fashion. It may be read as saying that the Spirit proceeds from the Father through (''dia'') the Son. This was the position of St [[Maximus the Confessor]], among others. [citation needed] On this reading, the Son is not an eternal cause (''aition'') of the Spirit. The heterodox reading taught sees the Son, along with the Father, as an eternal cause of the Spirit. Most in the [[Orthodox Church]] consider this latter reading to be a [[heresy]].

The description of the ''filioque'' as a heresy was iterated most clearly and definitively by the great [[Church Fathers|Father]] and [[Pillars of Orthodoxy|Pillar]] of the Church, St. [[Photius the Great]], in his ''On the Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit''. Some in the West held an orthodox interpretation, and some in the East held the heterodox. Photius, addressing the arguments themselves, decries the heretical [[Triadology]] which strikes at the very heart of what the Church believes about God.

== History ==
===Early use of the ''Filioque''===
It is useful to note that a regional council in Persia in 410 introduced one of the earliest forms of the ''filioque'' in the Creed; the council specified that the Spirit proceeds from the Father "and from the Son." Coming from the rich theology of early East Syrian Christianity, this expression in this context is authentically Eastern. Therefore, the ''filioque'' cannot be attacked as a solely Western innovation, nor as something created by the Pope.

In the West, St. [[Augustine of Hippo]] taught that the Spirit came from the Father ''and'' the Son, though subordinate to neither. His theology was dominant in the West until the Middle Ages, including his [[Triadology|theology of the Trinity]]. Other Latin fathers also spoke of the Spirit proceeding from both the Father and the Son. While familiar in the West, this way of speaking was virtually unknown in the Greek-speaking, Eastern Roman Empire.

Although the [[Second Ecumenical Council]] in 381 had expanded and completed the [[Nicene Creed]] begun at the [[First Ecumenical Council]], the [[Third Ecumenical Council]] (Ephesus, 431) had forbidden any further changes to the theology and/or wording of the Creed, except for by another [[Ecumenical Council]]. By this time, then, the text of the [[Nicene Creed]] had acquired a certain definitive authority, of ecumenical value and importance.

Rome received the [[Fourth Ecumenical Council]], which referred to preceding councils, citing the authority of the text of the Creed. However, at this time, central Italy was in a state of collapse. In 410 and 455, Rome was vandalized and sacked by barbarian invasions. In 476, the Western Roman Empire fell, with the exile of Romulus Augustulus, the last emperor.

The ''filioque'' was first used in Toledo, Spain in 587 without the consultation or agreement of the [[Pentarchy|five patriarchs]] of the [[Church]] at that time and in direct violation of [[canons]] of the [[Third Ecumenical Council]] that prohibited unilateral alteration of the Creed by anything short of another [[Ecumenical Council]]. The purpose of its addition in Spain was to counter a [[heresy]] that was local to that region, probably some form of [[Arianism]] brought there by the Goths (who had been missionized by the Arian bishop [[Wulfila]]). The practice spread then to France where it was repudiated at the Gentilly Council in 767.

After generations of social upheaval, strong leadership appeared in the person of Pepin the Short, king of the Franks, and his son, [[Charlemagne]], crowned as emperor in 800. Charlemagne intended to restore the Roman Empire in the West, with himself in charge, to the chagrin of the leaders of the Eastern Roman Empire. These he denigrated, labelling them "Greeks" (and, by implication, not-Romans), despite the Roman capital being in the East and the continued use by Easterners of ''Roman'' to describe themselves. Charlemagne called for a council at Aix-la-Chapelle in 809 at which Pope [[Leo III of Rome|Leo III]] forbade the use of the ''filioque'' clause and ordered that the original version of the [[Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed]] be engraved on silver tablets displayed at St. Peter's Basilica in Rome, apparently so that his conclusion would not be overturned in the future.

Some historians have suggested that the Franks in the 9th century pressured the Pope to adopt the ''filioque'' in order to drive a wedge between the Roman Church and the other patriarchates. Despite this action, the ''filioque'' had come into wide use in the West and became widely thought to be an integral part of the Creed, while Rome, renowned for its stability and conservatism, resisted. Similarly, unleavened bread had come to be thought of as normative for the [[Eucharist]]; diocesan priests were expected to be unmarried. In such cases, in the West, ancient tradition was forgotten. Contemporary usage was thought to be normative and authentic. In these matters of discipline, the influence of the Franks is certain. They intended to exalt Charlemagne, as the new Roman Emperor. The Catholic religion, as they knew it, was to be part of the package. Meanwhile, from c. 726 to 843, the Eastern Roman Empire, under the thumb of successive emperors, was dominated by the heresy of [[iconoclasm]]. Both Franks and Greeks, in their own way, departed from ancient tradition. Unlike the East, however, where iconoclasm was repudiated at the [[Seventh Ecumenical Council]] and the use of icons later confirmed by the [[Theodora (9th century empress)|Empress Theodora]], the West to date never recovered from its departure.

===The "Photian" Schism===
Within a couple of generations, in 858, a new situation came to pass. The Eastern Emperor Michael III removed [[Ignatius of Constantinople|Ignatius I]] as patriarch of Constantinople. The emperor replaced him with a layman, St. [[Photius the Great]], who was the first Imperial Secretary and Imperial Ambassador to Baghdad. However, Ignatius refused to bow to secular authority. Michael and Photius invited Pope [[Nicholas I of Rome]] to send legates to preside over a synod in Constantinople to settle the matter. With the council, the legates confirmed the patriarchate of Photius, much to Nicholas's chagrin, who then declared that they had "exceeded their authority."

In opposition to this removal of Ignatius, the bishop of Rome supported Ignatius as legitimate patriarch. Moreover, in violation to existing canons, Photius had been ordained to the office of bishop very quickly. Some scholarship suggests that violation of these canons was the main reason the bishop of Rome rejected the appointment of Photius, though other major actions by Nicholas to bolster his power and position as pope puts his intervention in Eastern ecclesiastical matters more firmly in the context of his general programme of the growth of papal monarchy.

Therefore, after the arrival of an embassy from Ignatius, in 862, Nicholas said that Photius was deposed, as well as the bishop who ordained him and all the clergy Photius had appointed. The sheer temerity of this action did not even generate a response from Constantinople. However, several years later in 867, Photius finally rejected the Pope's assertion, particularly because of the activities of Latin missionaries in Bulgaria, who were, as St. Photius says, turning the Orthodox Christians there away from their pure faith and leading them into [[heresy]]—most notably, the ''filioque''. Photius' response cited the ''filioque'' as proof that Rome had a habit of overstepping its proper limits.

In 867 and 869-70, synods in Rome and Constantinople (the [[Robber Council of 869-870]]) restored Ignatius to his position as patriarch and deposed Photius. In 877, after the death of Ignatius, Photius again resumed office, by order of the emperor and by the request of Ignatius himself, to whom Photius had been reconciled. In 879-880, he was officially restored to his see and the ''filioque'' effectively condemned by the [[Eighth Ecumenical Council]], a council at which papal legates participated and which the current pope, [[John VIII of Rome|John VIII]], eventually confirmed. He was deposed in 886 when Leo VI took over as emperor, who had had a dispute with his father and turned his animosity for his father toward one of his father's friends, Photius. Photius spent the rest of his life as a monk in exile in Armenia; he is revered by the Orthodox today as a [[saint]], one of the great [[Pillars of Orthodoxy]]. He was the first important [[theologian]] to accuse Rome of [[heresy]] in the matter of the ''filioque''.

===Rome capitulates to Filioquist pressure===
In the ninth century, Pope [[Leo III of Rome]] agreed with the ''filioque'' phrase theologically but was opposed to adopting it in Rome, in part because of his loyalty to the received [[tradition]]. (He also knew that the Greeks resented the new Roman Empire in the West and Charlemagne in particular; the Pope wanted to preserve Church unity.) In fact, Leo had the traditional text of the Creed, without the ''filioque'', displayed publicly, having the original text engraved on two silver tablets, at the tomb of St. [[Apostle Peter|Peter]]. In any case, during the time of Pope Leo's leadership, 795-816, there was no Creed at all in the Roman Mass.

Later, in 1014, the German Emperor Henry II of the Holy Roman Empire visited Rome for his coronation and found that the Creed was not used during the Mass. At his request, the bishop of Rome added the Creed, as it was known in the West with the ''filioque'', after the Gospel. At this time, the papacy was very weak and very much under the influence of the Germans. For the sake of survival, the Pope needed the military support of the Emperor. This was the first time the phrase was used in the [[Mass]] at Rome.

Thus, over nearly six centuries, dispute over the ''filioque'' had not divided the Church definitively; for the most part, in spite of cultural and linguistic conflicts, the Eastern and Western Churches remained in [[full communion]].

In 1054, however, the argument contributed to the [[Great Schism]] of the East and West, and the West went so far as to accuse the East of heresy for not including the ''filioque'' in the Creed. There were many other issues involved, in large part based on misunderstandings between Greek and Latin traditions, as well as the irascible temperament of the antagonists. These were Cardinal [[Humbert]] from Rome and Patriarch [[Michael I Cerularius of Constantinople|Michael Cerularius]] of Constantinople. In addition to the actual difference in wording and doctrine in the ''filioque'', a related issue was the right of the Pope to make a change in the [[Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed]] on his own, apart from an [[Ecumenical Council]].

===Attempted reunions and the ''Filioque'' after the Schism===
In the thirteenth century, philosophical theologian and Roman saint Thomas Aquinas was one of the dominant Scholastic theologians. He dealt explicitly with the processions of the divine Persons in his ''Summa Theologica''. While the theology of Aquinas and other Scholastics was dominant in the Western Middle Ages, for all its apparent clarity and brilliance, it remains theology, not official [[Roman Catholic Church]] teaching.

In 1274, the Second [[Council of Lyons]] said that the [[Holy Spirit]] proceeds from the [[God the Father|Father]] and the [[Christ|Son]], in accord with the ''filioque'' in the contemporary Latin version of the [[Nicene Creed]]. Reconciliation with the East, through this council, did not last. Remembering the Crusaders' sack of Constantinople in 1204, Orthodox Christians did not want to be reconciled with the West in terms of capitulation to Latin [[Triadology]] and [[ecclesiology]]. In 1283, Patriarch [[John Beccus]], who supported reconciliation with the Latin Church, was forced to abdicate; reunion failed.

The Crusaders in question were the Venetians of the [[Fourth Crusade]], who had earlier been excommunicated for attacking other Christians. In 1204, they were avenging the slaughter of Venetian merchants, in rioting, that took place in 1182. Pope Innocent III had sent them a letter, asking them not to attack Constantinople; after hearing of the sack of the city, he lamented their action and disowned them. Nevertheless, the people of Constantinople had a deep hatred for the people they called the "Latins" or the "Franks," and of course the Western church's major "endowment" from the spoils carried away now still largely rests in the hands of the Vatican.

For much of the 14th century, there were two bishops, each claiming to be Pope, each excommunicating the followers of the other. The Great Western Schism concluded with yet a third individual claiming to be Pope and the Council of Constance. The East could hardly seek reconciliation with a Western Church divided among itself. (In the middle of the century, about a third of Western Europe died of the Black Death. People were more concerned about the plague than about Church unity.)

At the [[Council of Florence]] in 1439, Emperor [[John VIII Palaeologus]], Patriarch Joseph of Constantinople, and other bishops from the East travelled to northern Italy in hope of reconciliation with the West, mainly in order to solicit military assistance to fend off the encroaching Turkish invaders. After extensive discussion, in Ferrara, then in Florence, they acknowledged that some Latin Fathers spoke of the procession of the Spirit differently from the Greek Fathers. Since the general consensus of the Fathers was held to be reliable, as a witness to common faith, the Western usage was held not to be a heresy and not a barrier to restoration of full communion. All the Eastern patriarchs bishops present, but one, agreed and signed a decree of union between East and West, ''Laetentur Coeli'' in 1439. The one bishop who refused to sign and was later heralded as a Pillar of Orthodoxy by the Church was St. [[Mark of Ephesus]], who followed in the footsteps of the previous Pillar of Orthodoxy, St. [[Photius the Great]].

Officially and publicly, the Roman and the Orthodox Church were back in communion. However, the reconciliation achieved at Florence was soon destroyed, founded as it was on a compromise of faith. Numerous Orthodox faithful and bishops rejected the union, saying that the council's teachings were incorrect and therefore not ecumenical. Moreover, after the Turks [[Fall of Constantinople|conquered Constantinople in 1453]], they fostered separation from the West, which remained an adversary to Islamic political and military dominance. Furthermore, the patriarch, Gennadius, was also one of the bishops who had repudiated the reunion of Florence on his own initiative.

Finally, the theology of rationalistic Western Scholasticism predominated among the Latin theologians and bishops and so obscured the biblical, patristic perspective long advocated by the East, in which the Spirit is said to proceed "from the Father" (as in [[Gospel of John|John]] 15:26) or, more rarely, "from the Father ''through'' the Son" (as in some of the Fathers). The Eastern bishops had not imbibed the rationalist intellectualism of the West, and so were unconvinced by the highly abstract and convoluted arguments of the Scholastics. Hence, the agreement of Florence, intellectually, represented in many respects an imposition of Scholastic theology.

Undeniably, the ''filioque'' controversy was at least officially resolved, for both Orthodox and Catholic. However, because of the historical situation and because of the different ecclesiologies of the East and West—in the East, the whole Church is seen as the guardian of faith, while for the West, the Magisterium maintains the faith—this resolution was neither fully received nor permanently sustained.

Though there had been a reunion [[Divine Liturgy|liturgy]] held in December of 1452 at [[Hagia Sophia (Constantinople)|Hagia Sophia]] in Constantinople at which the Pope's name was commemorated and the ''filioque'' used in the Creed, that had been largely boycotted by most of the clergy and laity in the city. On the evening of [[May 28]], 1453, however, another liturgy was held which also commemorated the Pope and used the ''filioque'', but which was not boycotted by the majority of the city. The next day, Constantinople fell to the Muslim invaders.

===Recent discussions and statements===
Dialogue on this and other subjects is continuing. The ''filioque'' clause was the main subject discussed at the 62nd meeting of the [[North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation]], which met at [[Holy Cross Greek Orthodox School of Theology (Brookline, Massachusetts)]] from [[June 3]] through [[June 5]], 2002, for their spring session. As a result of these modern discussions, it has been suggested that the Orthodox could accept an "economic" ''filioque'' that states that the Holy Spirit, who originates in the Father alone, was sent to the Church "through the Son" (as the [[Paraclete]]), but this is not official Orthodox doctrine. It is what the Fathers call a ''[[theologoumenon]]'', a theological opinion. (Similarly, the late Edward Kilmartin, S.J., proposed as a ''theologoumenon'' a "mission" of the Holy Spirit to the Church.)

Recently, an important, agreed statement has been made by the North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation, on [[October 25]], 2003. This document ''The Filioque: A Church-Dividing Issue?'', provides an extensive review of [[Scripture]], history, and [[theology]]. Especially critical are the recommendations of this consultation, for example:

#That all involved in such dialogue expressly recognize the limitations of our ability to make definitive assertions about the inner life of God.
#That, in the future, because of the progress in mutual understanding that has come about in recent decades, Orthodox and Catholics refrain from labeling as heretical the traditions of the other side on the subject of the procession of the Holy Spirit.
#That Orthodox and Catholic theologians distinguish more clearly between the divinity and hypostatic identity of the Holy Spirit (which is a received [[dogma]] of our Churches) and the manner of the Spirit's origin, which still awaits full and final ecumenical resolution.
#That those engaged in dialogue on this issue distinguish, as far as possible, the theological issues of the origin of the Holy Spirit from the ecclesiological issues of primacy and doctrinal authority in the Church, even as we pursue both questions seriously, together.
#That the theological dialogue between our Churches also give careful consideration to the status of later councils held in both our Churches after those seven generally received as ecumenical.
#That the Catholic Church, as a consequence of the normative and irrevocable dogmatic value of the Creed of 381, use the original Greek text alone in making translations of that Creed for catechetical and liturgical use.
#That the Catholic Church, following a growing theological consensus, and in particular the statements made by Pope Paul VI, declare that the condemnation made at the Second Council of Lyons (1274) of those "who presume to deny that the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son" is no longer applicable.

In the judgment of the consultation, the question of the ''filioque'' is no longer a "Church-dividing" issue, one which would impede full reconciliation and full communion, once again. It still stands for the bishops and faithful of the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches to review this work and to make whatever decisions would be appropriate.

==The ''Filioque'' as heresy==
There has never been a specific conciliar statement in the [[Orthodox Church]] which defined the ''filioque'' as [[heresy]]. That being said, however, it has been regarded as heretical by multiple Orthodox saints, including Ss. [[Photius the Great]], [[Mark of Ephesus]], and [[Gregory Palamas]] (the three Pillars of Orthodoxy). At the [[Third Ecumenical Council]] and the [[Eighth Ecumenical Council|"Photian" council of 879-880]] (both councils Rome signed onto), all changes to the Creed are anathematized. Further, it is explicitly denounced as heretical by the 1848 ''[[Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs]]''.

There are a number of reasons traditionally cited for the definition of the ''filioque'' as heretical, including the following:

===Objections on doctrinal grounds===
*It is contrary to Scripture, particularly in [[Gospel of John|John]] 15:26: "But when the Helper comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify of Me." Thus, Christ never describes the Holy Spirit as proceeding from himself, but only mentions the Spirit's procession in terms of the Father.

*The justifications for including the ''filioque'' in the Creed—bolstering the divinity of the Son and emphasizing the unity of the Trinity—are redundant, given the original wording of the Creed. That is, the Son already is described as "light of light, very God of very God," and so forth. The Spirit also "with the Father and Son together is worshiped and glorified." Additionally, the Creed itself begins with a statement of belief in "one God."

*The ''filioque'' distorts Orthodox [[Triadology]] by making the Spirit a subordinate member of the Trinity. Traditional Triadology consists in the notion that for any given trait, it must be either common to all Persons of the Trinity or unique to one of them. Thus, Fatherhood is unique to the Father, while begottenness is unique to the Son, and procession unique to the Spirit. Godhood, however, is common to all, as is eternality, uncreatedness, and so forth. Positing that something can be shared by two Persons (i.e., being the source of the Spirit's procession) but not the other is to elevate those two Persons at the expense of the other. Thus, the balance of unity and diversity is destroyed.

*Given the previous objection, the repercussions to the acceptance of the ''filioque'' into church life are potentially massive. Because how we relate to God is significantly affected by what we believe about him, false beliefs lead to damaging spirituality. One objection often raised about Filioquist theology is that it undermines the role of the Holy Spirit in the Church. Thus, with his role being denigrated, his traditional ministries are effaced or replaced. The Church's unity becomes dependent on an office, spirituality becomes adherence to the letter of the law rather than its spirit, sacraments come to be understood in terms of validity, and a spirit of legalism prevails.

===Objections on canonical and historical grounds===
*Though not really a question of heresy, a common objection is to the means of inserting the ''filioque'' into the Creed. That is, unlike the original adoption of the Creed at [[First Ecumenical Council|Nicea]] and its subsequent revision at [[Second Ecumenical Council|Constantinople]], the decision to include the ''filioque'' in the Creed was not done by an [[Ecumenical Council]]. Rather, it was initially inserted by the Third Synod of Toledo, Spain (589).

*Rome resisted the inclusion of the ''filioque'' for centuries. Leo III, the Pope of Rome at the time the ''filioque'' began its history in Western theology, strongly advised against its inclusion, even though he agreed with the soundness and validity of the doctrine contained in ''filioque''. Later, however, Rome contradicted its previous more Orthodox stance by the promulgation of the ''filioque'', thus anathematizing its own spiritual forebears.

==External links==
*[[Wikipedia:Filioque External Links: an Online Bibliography]]
*[http://www.geocities.com/trvalentine/orthodox/filioque.html Filioque Page], by Thomas Ross Valentine
*[http://www.romanity.org/htm/rom.17.en.the_filioque_in_the_dublin_agreed_statement_1984.01.htm The Filioque in the Dublin Agreed Statement 1984], by Fr. [[John S. Romanides]]
*[http://agrino.org/cyberdesert/Pelikan.htm The Filioque], by Prof. [[Jaroslav Pelikan]]
*[http://agrino.org/cyberdesert/meyendorf.htm On the Question of the Filioque], by Fr. [[John Meyendorff]]
*[http://agrino.org/cyberdesert/zizioulas.htm One Single Source], by Metr. [[John Zizioulas]]
*[http://www.energeticprocession.com/archives/Azkoul_filioque.pdf The Filioque: A Reply to the Agreed Statement of the North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation], by Fr. Michael Azkoul

[[Category:Church History]]
[[Category:Councils]]
[[Category:Creeds]]
[[Category:Ecumenical Councils]]
[[Category:Featured Articles]]
[[Category:Heresies]]

[[ro:Filioque]]

Filioque

2010-04-07T04:59:54Z

CircularReason:

'''''Filioque''''' is a Latin word meaning "and the Son" which was interpolated into the [[Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed]] by the [[Church of Rome]] in the 11th century, one of the major factors leading to the [[Great Schism]] between East and West. This inclusion in the Creedal article regarding the [[Holy Spirit]] thus states that the Spirit "proceeds from the Father '''''and the Son'''''."

The inclusion of the word in the Creed is a violation of the [[canons]] of the [[Third Ecumenical Council]] in 431, which forbade and [[anathema]]tized any additions to the Creed, a prohibition which was reiterated at the [[Eighth Ecumenical Council]] in 879-880.

The addition may be a merely verbal addition, or a fully verbal & doctrinal addition. The Filioquist doctrine is primarily a doctrinal violation, rather than linguistic. The word was not included by the [[First Ecumenical Council|Council of Nicea]] nor of [[Second Ecumenical Council|Constantinople]]. But neither was another phrase "Deum de Deo" ("God from God"), which was added to the Creed but is viewed as orthodox.

The term itself has been interpreted in both an Orthodox fashion and a heterodox fashion. It may be read as saying that the Spirit proceeds from the Father through (''dia'') the Son. This was the position of St [[Maximus the Confessor]], among others. [citation needed] On this reading, the Son is not an eternal cause (''aition'') of the Spirit. The heterodox reading taught sees the Son, along with the Father, as an eternal cause of the Spirit. Most in the [[Orthodox Church]] consider this latter reading to be a [[heresy]].

The description of the ''filioque'' as a heresy was iterated most clearly and definitively by the great [[Church Fathers|Father]] and [[Pillars of Orthodoxy|Pillar]] of the Church, St. [[Photius the Great]], in his ''On the Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit''. Some in the West held an orthodox interpretation, and some in the East held the heterodox. Photius, addressing the arguments themselves, decries the heretical [[Triadology]] which strikes at the very heart of what the Church believes about God.

== History ==
===Early use of the ''Filioque''===
It is useful to note that a regional council in Persia in 410 introduced one of the earliest forms of the ''filioque'' in the Creed; the council specified that the Spirit proceeds from the Father "and from the Son." Coming from the rich theology of early East Syrian Christianity, this expression in this context is authentically Eastern. Therefore, the ''filioque'' cannot be attacked as a solely Western innovation, nor as something created by the Pope.

In the West, St. [[Augustine of Hippo]] taught that the Spirit came from the Father ''and'' the Son, though subordinate to neither. His theology was dominant in the West until the Middle Ages, including his [[Triadology|theology of the Trinity]]. Other Latin fathers also spoke of the Spirit proceeding from both the Father and the Son. While familiar in the West, this way of speaking was virtually unknown in the Greek-speaking, Eastern Roman Empire.

Although the [[Second Ecumenical Council]] in 381 had expanded and completed the [[Nicene Creed]] begun at the [[First Ecumenical Council]], the [[Third Ecumenical Council]] (Ephesus, 431) had forbidden any further changes to the theology and/or wording of the Creed, except for by another [[Ecumenical Council]]. By this time, then, the text of the [[Nicene Creed]] had acquired a certain definitive authority, of ecumenical value and importance.

Rome received the [[Fourth Ecumenical Council]], which referred to preceding councils, citing the authority of the text of the Creed. However, at this time, central Italy was in a state of collapse. In 410 and 455, Rome was vandalized and sacked by barbarian invasions. In 476, the Western Roman Empire fell, with the exile of Romulus Augustulus, the last emperor. Chaos followed.

The ''filioque'' was first used in Toledo, Spain in 587 without the consultation or agreement of the [[Pentarchy|five patriarchs]] of the [[Church]] at that time and in direct violation of [[canons]] of the [[Third Ecumenical Council]] that prohibited unilateral alteration of the Creed by anything short of another [[Ecumenical Council]]. The purpose of its addition in Spain was to counter a [[heresy]] that was local to that region, probably some form of [[Arianism]] brought there by the Goths (who had been missionized by the Arian bishop [[Wulfila]]). The practice spread then to France where it was repudiated at the Gentilly Council in 767.

After generations of social upheaval, strong leadership appeared in the person of Pepin the Short, king of the Franks, and his son, [[Charlemagne]], crowned as emperor in 800. Charlemagne intended to restore the Roman Empire in the West, with himself in charge, to the chagrin of the leaders of the Eastern Roman Empire, whom he referred to as "Greeks" (and thus not Romans), despite the Roman capital being in the East and the continued use by Easterners of ''Roman'' to describe themselves. Charlemagne called for a council at Aix-la-Chapelle in 809 at which Pope [[Leo III of Rome|Leo III]] forbade the use of the ''filioque'' clause and ordered that the original version of the [[Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed]] be engraved on silver tablets displayed at St. Peter's Basilica in Rome so that his conclusion would not be overturned in the future.

Some historians have suggested that the Franks in the 9th century pressured the Pope to adopt the ''filioque'' in order to drive a wedge between the Roman Church and the other patriarchates. It is true that the ''filioque'' had come into wide use in the West and was widely thought to be an integral part of the Creed, while Rome, renowned for its stability in Orthodoxy, resisted. Similarly, unleavened bread had come to be thought of as normative for the [[Eucharist]]; diocesan priests were expected to be unmarried. In such cases, in the West, ancient tradition was forgotten. Contemporary usage was thought to be normative and authentic. In these matters of discipline, the influence of the Franks is certain. They intended to exalt Charlemagne, as the new Roman Emperor. The Catholic religion, as they knew it, was to be part of the package. Meanwhile, from ca. 726 to 843, the Eastern Roman Empire, under the thumb of successive emperors, was dominated by the heresy of [[iconoclasm]]. Both Franks and Greeks, in their own way, departed from ancient tradition. Unlike the East, however, where iconoclasm was repudiated at the [[Seventh Ecumenical Council]] and the use of icons later confirmed by the [[Theodora (9th century empress)|Empress Theodora]], the West to date never recovered from its departure.

===The "Photian" Schism===
Within a couple of generations, in 858, a new situation came to pass. The Eastern Emperor Michael III removed [[Ignatius of Constantinople|Ignatius I]] as patriarch of Constantinople. The emperor replaced him with a layman, St. [[Photius the Great]], who was the first Imperial Secretary and Imperial Ambassador to Baghdad. However, Ignatius refused to abdicate. Michael and Photius invited Pope [[Nicholas I of Rome]] to send legates to preside over a synod in Constantinople to settle the matter. With the council, the legates confirmed the patriarchate of Photius, much to Nicholas's chagrin, who then declared that they had "exceeded their authority."

In opposition to this removal of Ignatius, the bishop of Rome supported Ignatius as legitimate patriarch. Moreover, contrary to existing canons, Photius had been ordained to the office of bishop very quickly. Some scholarship suggests that violation of these canons was the main reason the bishop of Rome rejected the appointment of Photius, though other major actions by Nicholas to bolster his power and position as pope puts his intervention in Eastern ecclesiastical matters more firmly in the context of his general programme of the growth of papal monarchy.

Therefore, after the arrival of an embassy from Ignatius, in 862, Nicholas said that Photius was deposed, as well as the bishop who ordained him and all the clergy Photius had appointed. The sheer temerity of this action did not even generate a response from Constantinople. However, several years later in 867, Photius finally rejected the Pope's assertion, particularly because of the activities of Latin missionaries in Bulgaria, who were, as St. Photius says, turning the Orthodox Christians there away from their pure Orthodox faith and leading them into [[heresy]]—most notably, the ''filioque''. Photius' response cited the ''filioque'' as proof that Rome had a habit of overstepping its proper limits.

In 867 and 869-70, synods in Rome and Constantinople (the [[Robber Council of 869-870]]) restored Ignatius to his position as patriarch and deposed Photius. In 877, after the death of Ignatius, Photius again resumed office, by order of the emperor and by the request of Ignatius himself, to whom Photius had been reconciled. In 879-880, he was officially restored to his see and the ''filioque'' effectively condemned by the [[Eighth Ecumenical Council]], a council at which papal legates participated and which the current pope, [[John VIII of Rome|John VIII]], eventually confirmed. He was deposed in 886 when Leo VI took over as emperor, who had had a dispute with his father and turned his animosity for his father toward one of his father's friends, Photius. Photius spent the rest of his life as a monk in exile in Armenia; he is revered by the Orthodox today as a [[saint]], one of the great [[Pillars of Orthodoxy]]. He was the first important [[theologian]] to accuse Rome of [[heresy]] in the matter of the ''filioque''.

===Rome capitulates to Filioquist pressure===
In the ninth century, Pope [[Leo III of Rome]] agreed with the ''filioque'' phrase theologically but was opposed to adopting it in Rome, in part because of his loyalty to the received [[tradition]]. (He also knew that the Greeks resented the new Roman Empire in the West and Charlemagne in particular; the Pope wanted to preserve Church unity.) In fact, Leo had the traditional text of the Creed, without the ''filioque'', displayed publicly, having the original text engraved on two silver tablets, at the tomb of St. [[Apostle Peter|Peter]]. In any case, during the time of Pope Leo's leadership, 795-816, there was no Creed at all in the Roman Mass.

Later, in 1014, the German Emperor Henry II of the Holy Roman Empire visited Rome for his coronation and found that the Creed was not used during the Mass. At his request, the bishop of Rome added the Creed, as it was known in the West with the ''filioque'', after the Gospel. At this time, the papacy was very weak and very much under the influence of the Germans. For the sake of survival, the Pope needed the military support of the Emperor. This was the first time the phrase was used in the [[Mass]] at Rome.

Thus, over nearly six centuries, dispute over the ''filioque'' had not divided the Church definitively; for the most part, in spite of cultural and linguistic conflicts, the Eastern and Western Churches remained in [[full communion]].

In 1054, however, the argument contributed to the [[Great Schism]] of the East and West, and the West went so far as to accuse the East of heresy for not including the ''filioque'' in the Creed. There were many other issues involved, in large part based on misunderstandings between Greek and Latin traditions, as well as the irascible temperament of the antagonists. These were Cardinal [[Humbert]] from Rome and Patriarch [[Michael I Cerularius of Constantinople|Michael Cerularius]] of Constantinople. In addition to the actual difference in wording and doctrine in the ''filioque'', a related issue was the right of the Pope to make a change in the [[Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed]] on his own, apart from an [[Ecumenical Council]].

===Attempted reunions and the ''Filioque'' after the Schism===
In the thirteenth century, Thomas Aquinas was one of the dominant Scholastic theologians. He dealt explicitly with the processions of the divine Persons in his ''Summa Theologica''. While the theology of Aquinas and other Scholastics was dominant in the Western Middle Ages, for all its apparent clarity and brilliance, it remains theology, not official [[Roman Catholic Church]] teaching.

In 1274, the Second [[Council of Lyons]] said that the [[Holy Spirit]] proceeds from the [[God the Father|Father]] and the [[Christ|Son]], in accord with the ''filioque'' in the contemporary Latin version of the [[Nicene Creed]]. Reconciliation with the East, through this council, did not last. Remembering the Crusaders' sack of Constantinople in 1204, Orthodox Christians did not want to be reconciled with the West in terms of capitulation to Latin [[Triadology]] and [[ecclesiology]]. In 1283, Patriarch [[John Beccus]], who supported reconciliation with the Latin Church, was forced to abdicate; reunion failed.

The Crusaders in question were the Venetians of the [[Fourth Crusade]], who had earlier been excommunicated for attacking other Christians. In 1204, they were getting even for a slaughter of Venetian merchants, in rioting, that took place in 1182. Pope Innocent III had sent them a letter, asking them not to attack Constantinople; after hearing of the sack of the city, he lamented their action and disowned them. Nevertheless, the people of Constantinople had a deep hatred for the people they called the "Latins" or the "Franks," and of course the Western church's major "endowment" from the spoils carried away now still largely rests in the hands of the Vatican.

For much of the 14th century, there were two bishops, each claiming to be Pope, each excommunicating the followers of the other. The Great Western Schism concluded with yet a third individual claiming to be Pope and the Council of Constance. The East could hardly seek reconciliation with a Western Church divided among itself. (In the middle of the century, about a third of Western Europe died of the Black Death. People were more concerned about the plague than about Church unity.)

At the [[Council of Florence]] in 1439, Emperor [[John VIII Palaeologus]], Patriarch Joseph of Constantinople, and other bishops from the East travelled to northern Italy in hope of reconciliation with the West, mainly in order to solicit military assistance to fend off the encroaching Turkish invaders. After extensive discussion, in Ferrara, then in Florence, they acknowledged that some Latin Fathers spoke of the procession of the Spirit differently from the Greek Fathers. Since the general consensus of the Fathers was held to be reliable, as a witness to common faith, the Western usage was held not to be a heresy and not a barrier to restoration of full communion. All but one of the Orthodox bishops present agreed and signed a decree of union between East and West, ''Laetentur Coeli'' in 1439. The one bishop who refused to sign and was later heralded as a Pillar of Orthodoxy by the Church was St. [[Mark of Ephesus]], who followed in the footsteps of the previous Pillar of Orthodoxy, St. [[Photius the Great]].

Officially and publicly, Rome and the Orthodox Church were back in communion. However, the reconciliation achieved at Florence was soon destroyed, founded as it was on a compromise of faith. Numerous Orthodox faithful and bishops rejected the union. Moreover, after the Turks [[Fall of Constantinople|conquered Constantinople in 1453]], they fostered separation from the West, which remained an adversary to Islamic political and military dominance. Furthermore, the patriarch, Gennadius, was also one of the bishops who had repudiated the reunion of Florence on his own initiative.

Finally, the theology of rationalistic Western Scholasticism predominated among the Latin theologians and bishops and so obscured the biblical, patristic perspective long advocated by the East, in which the Spirit is said to proceed "from the Father" (as in [[Gospel of John|John]] 15:26) or, more rarely, "from the Father ''through'' the Son" (as in some of the Fathers). The Eastern bishops had not imbibed the rationalist intellectualism of the West, and so were unconvinced by the highly abstract and convoluted arguments of the Scholastics. Hence, the agreement of Florence, intellectually, represented in many respects an imposition of Scholastic theology.

Undeniably, the ''filioque'' controversy was at least officially resolved, for both Orthodox and Catholic. However, because of the historical situation and because of the different ecclesiologies of the East and West—in the East, the whole Church is seen as the guardian of faith, while for the West, the Magisterium maintains the faith—this resolution was neither fully received nor permanently sustained.

Though there had been a reunion [[Divine Liturgy|liturgy]] held in December of 1452 at [[Hagia Sophia (Constantinople)|Hagia Sophia]] in Constantinople at which the Pope's name was commemorated and the ''filioque'' used in the Creed, that had been largely boycotted by most of the clergy and laity in the city. On the evening of [[May 28]], 1453, however, another liturgy was held which also commemorated the Pope and used the ''filioque'', but which was not boycotted by the majority of the city. The next day, Constantinople fell to the Muslim invaders.

===Recent discussions and statements===
Dialogue on this and other subjects is continuing. The ''filioque'' clause was the main subject discussed at the 62nd meeting of the [[North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation]], which met at [[Holy Cross Greek Orthodox School of Theology (Brookline, Massachusetts)]] from [[June 3]] through [[June 5]], 2002, for their spring session. As a result of these modern discussions, it has been suggested that the Orthodox could accept an "economic" ''filioque'' that states that the Holy Spirit, who originates in the Father alone, was sent to the Church "through the Son" (as the [[Paraclete]]), but this is not official Orthodox doctrine. It is what the Fathers call a ''[[theologoumenon]]'', a theological opinion. (Similarly, the late Edward Kilmartin, S.J., proposed as a ''theologoumenon'' a "mission" of the Holy Spirit to the Church.)

Recently, an important, agreed statement has been made by the North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation, on [[October 25]], 2003. This document ''The Filioque: A Church-Dividing Issue?'', provides an extensive review of [[Scripture]], history, and [[theology]]. Especially critical are the recommendations of this consultation, for example:

#That all involved in such dialogue expressly recognize the limitations of our ability to make definitive assertions about the inner life of God.
#That, in the future, because of the progress in mutual understanding that has come about in recent decades, Orthodox and Catholics refrain from labeling as heretical the traditions of the other side on the subject of the procession of the Holy Spirit.
#That Orthodox and Catholic theologians distinguish more clearly between the divinity and hypostatic identity of the Holy Spirit (which is a received [[dogma]] of our Churches) and the manner of the Spirit's origin, which still awaits full and final ecumenical resolution.
#That those engaged in dialogue on this issue distinguish, as far as possible, the theological issues of the origin of the Holy Spirit from the ecclesiological issues of primacy and doctrinal authority in the Church, even as we pursue both questions seriously, together.
#That the theological dialogue between our Churches also give careful consideration to the status of later councils held in both our Churches after those seven generally received as ecumenical.
#That the Catholic Church, as a consequence of the normative and irrevocable dogmatic value of the Creed of 381, use the original Greek text alone in making translations of that Creed for catechetical and liturgical use.
#That the Catholic Church, following a growing theological consensus, and in particular the statements made by Pope Paul VI, declare that the condemnation made at the Second Council of Lyons (1274) of those "who presume to deny that the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son" is no longer applicable.

In the judgment of the consultation, the question of the ''filioque'' is no longer a "Church-dividing" issue, one which would impede full reconciliation and full communion, once again. It still stands for the bishops and faithful of the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches to review this work and to make whatever decisions would be appropriate.

==The ''Filioque'' as heresy==
There has never been a specific conciliar statement in the [[Orthodox Church]] which defined the ''filioque'' as [[heresy]]. That being said, however, it has been regarded as heretical by multiple Orthodox saints, including Ss. [[Photius the Great]], [[Mark of Ephesus]], and [[Gregory Palamas]] (the three Pillars of Orthodoxy). At the [[Third Ecumenical Council]] and the [[Eighth Ecumenical Council|"Photian" council of 879-880]] (both councils Rome signed onto), all changes to the Creed are anathematized. Further, it is explicitly denounced as heretical by the 1848 ''[[Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs]]''.

There are a number of reasons traditionally cited for the definition of the ''filioque'' as heretical, including the following:

===Objections on doctrinal grounds===
*It is contrary to Scripture, particularly in [[Gospel of John|John]] 15:26: "But when the Helper comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify of Me." Thus, Christ never describes the Holy Spirit as proceeding from himself, but only mentions the Spirit's procession in terms of the Father.

*The justifications for including the ''filioque'' in the Creed—bolstering the divinity of the Son and emphasizing the unity of the Trinity—are redundant, given the original wording of the Creed. That is, the Son already is described as "light of light, very God of very God," and so forth. The Spirit also "with the Father and Son together is worshiped and glorified." Additionally, the Creed itself begins with a statement of belief in "one God."

*The ''filioque'' distorts Orthodox [[Triadology]] by making the Spirit a subordinate member of the Trinity. Traditional Triadology consists in the notion that for any given trait, it must be either common to all Persons of the Trinity or unique to one of them. Thus, Fatherhood is unique to the Father, while begottenness is unique to the Son, and procession unique to the Spirit. Godhood, however, is common to all, as is eternality, uncreatedness, and so forth. Positing that something can be shared by two Persons (i.e., being the source of the Spirit's procession) but not the other is to elevate those two Persons at the expense of the other. Thus, the balance of unity and diversity is destroyed.

*Given the previous objection, the repercussions to the acceptance of the ''filioque'' into church life are potentially massive. Because how we relate to God is significantly affected by what we believe about him, false beliefs lead to damaging spirituality. One objection often raised about Filioquist theology is that it undermines the role of the Holy Spirit in the Church. Thus, with his role being denigrated, his traditional ministries are effaced or replaced. The Church's unity becomes dependent on an office, spirituality becomes adherence to the letter of the law rather than its spirit, sacraments come to be understood in terms of validity, and a spirit of legalism prevails.

===Objections on canonical and historical grounds===
*Though not really a question of heresy, a common objection is to the means of inserting the ''filioque'' into the Creed. That is, unlike the original adoption of the Creed at [[First Ecumenical Council|Nicea]] and its subsequent revision at [[Second Ecumenical Council|Constantinople]], the decision to include the ''filioque'' in the Creed was not done by an [[Ecumenical Council]]. Rather, it was initially inserted by the Third Synod of Toledo, Spain (589).

*Rome resisted the inclusion of the ''filioque'' for centuries. Leo III, the Pope of Rome at the time the ''filioque'' began its history in Western theology, strongly advised against its inclusion, even though he agreed with the soundness and validity of the doctrine contained in ''filioque''. Later, however, Rome contradicted its previous more Orthodox stance by the promulgation of the ''filioque'', thus anathematizing its own spiritual forebears.

==External links==
*[[Wikipedia:Filioque External Links: an Online Bibliography]]
*[http://www.geocities.com/trvalentine/orthodox/filioque.html Filioque Page], by Thomas Ross Valentine
*[http://www.romanity.org/htm/rom.17.en.the_filioque_in_the_dublin_agreed_statement_1984.01.htm The Filioque in the Dublin Agreed Statement 1984], by Fr. [[John S. Romanides]]
*[http://agrino.org/cyberdesert/Pelikan.htm The Filioque], by Prof. [[Jaroslav Pelikan]]
*[http://agrino.org/cyberdesert/meyendorf.htm On the Question of the Filioque], by Fr. [[John Meyendorff]]
*[http://agrino.org/cyberdesert/zizioulas.htm One Single Source], by Metr. [[John Zizioulas]]
*[http://www.energeticprocession.com/archives/Azkoul_filioque.pdf The Filioque: A Reply to the Agreed Statement of the North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation], by Fr. Michael Azkoul

[[Category:Church History]]
[[Category:Councils]]
[[Category:Creeds]]
[[Category:Ecumenical Councils]]
[[Category:Featured Articles]]
[[Category:Heresies]]

[[ro:Filioque]]

Filioque

2010-04-07T04:43:29Z

CircularReason: Undo Pro-Filioquist revisions by Maximustheconfessor (Talk)

'''''Filioque''''' is a Latin word meaning "and the Son" which was added to the [[Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed]] by the [[Church of Rome]] in the 11th century, one of the major factors leading to the [[Great Schism]] between East and West. This inclusion in the Creedal article regarding the [[Holy Spirit]] thus states that the Spirit "proceeds from the Father '''''and the Son'''''."

Its inclusion in the Creed is a violation of the [[canons]] of the [[Third Ecumenical Council]] in 431, which forbade and [[anathema]]tized any additions to the Creed, a prohibition which was reiterated at the [[Eighth Ecumenical Council]] in 879-880. This word was not included by the [[First Ecumenical Council|Council of Nicea]] nor of [[Second Ecumenical Council|Constantinople]]. The term itself has been interpreted in both an Orthodox fashion and a heterodox fashion. It may be read as saying that the Spirit proceeds from the Father through (''dia'') the Son. This was the position of St [[Maximus the Confessor]]. On this reading, the Son is not an eternal cause (''aition'') of the Spirit. The heterodox reading sees the Son, along with the Father, as an eternal cause of the Spirit. Most in the [[Orthodox Church]] consider this latter reading to be a [[heresy]].

The description of the ''filioque'' as a heresy was iterated most clearly and definitively by the great [[Church Fathers|Father]] and [[Pillars of Orthodoxy|Pillar]] of the Church, St. [[Photius the Great]], in his ''On the Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit''. He describes it as a heresy of [[Triadology]], striking at the very heart of what the Church believes about God.

== History ==
===Early use of the ''Filioque''===
It is useful to note that a regional council in Persia in 410 introduced one of the earliest forms of the ''filioque'' in the Creed; the council specified that the Spirit proceeds from the Father "and from the Son." Coming from the rich theology of early East Syrian Christianity, this expression in this context is authentically Eastern. Therefore, the ''filioque'' cannot be attacked as a solely Western innovation, nor as something created by the Pope.

In the West, St. [[Augustine of Hippo]] taught that the Spirit came from the Father ''and'' the Son, though subordinate to neither. His theology was dominant in the West until the Middle Ages, including his [[Triadology|theology of the Trinity]]. Other Latin fathers also spoke of the Spirit proceeding from both the Father and the Son. While familiar in the West, this way of speaking was virtually unknown in the Greek-speaking, Eastern Roman Empire.

Although the [[Second Ecumenical Council]] in 381 had expanded and completed the [[Nicene Creed]] begun at the [[First Ecumenical Council]], the [[Third Ecumenical Council]] (Ephesus, 431) had forbidden any further changes to it, except for by another [[Ecumenical Council]]. By this time, then, the text of the [[Nicene Creed]] had acquired a certain definitive authority, of ecumenical value and importance.

Rome received the [[Fourth Ecumenical Council]], which referred to preceding councils, citing the authority of the text of the Creed. However, at this time, central Italy was in a state of collapse. In 410 and 455, Rome was vandalized and sacked by barbarian invasions. In 476, the Western Roman Empire fell, with the exile of Romulus Augustulus, the last emperor. Chaos followed.

The ''filioque'' was first used in Toledo, Spain in 587 without the consultation or agreement of the [[Pentarchy|five patriarchs]] of the [[Church]] at that time and in direct violation of [[canons]] of the [[Third Ecumenical Council]] that prohibited unilateral alteration of the Creed by anything short of another [[Ecumenical Council]]. The purpose of its addition in Spain was to counter a [[heresy]] that was local to that region, probably some form of [[Arianism]] brought there by the Goths (who had been missionized by the Arian bishop [[Wulfila]]). The practice spread then to France where it was repudiated at the Gentilly Council in 767.

After generations of social upheaval, strong leadership appeared in the person of Pepin the Short, king of the Franks, and his son, [[Charlemagne]], crowned as emperor in 800. Charlemagne intended to restore the Roman Empire in the West, with himself in charge, to the chagrin of the leaders of the Eastern Roman Empire, whom he referred to as "Greeks" (and thus not Romans), despite the Roman capital being in the East and the continued use by Easterners of ''Roman'' to describe themselves. Charlemagne called for a council at Aix-la-Chapelle in 809 at which Pope [[Leo III of Rome|Leo III]] forbade the use of the ''filioque'' clause and ordered that the original version of the [[Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed]] be engraved on silver tablets displayed at St. Peter's Basilica in Rome so that his conclusion would not be overturned in the future.

Some historians have suggested that the Franks in the 9th century pressured the Pope to adopt the ''filioque'' in order to drive a wedge between the Roman Church and the other patriarchates. It is true that the ''filioque'' had come into wide use in the West and was widely thought to be an integral part of the Creed, while Rome, renowned for its stability in Orthodoxy, resisted. Similarly, unleavened bread had come to be thought of as normative for the [[Eucharist]]; diocesan priests were expected to be unmarried. In such cases, in the West, ancient tradition was forgotten. Contemporary usage was thought to be normative and authentic. In these matters of discipline, the influence of the Franks is certain. They intended to exalt Charlemagne, as the new Roman Emperor. The Catholic religion, as they knew it, was to be part of the package. Meanwhile, from ca. 726 to 843, the Eastern Roman Empire, under the thumb of successive emperors, was dominated by the heresy of [[iconoclasm]]. Both Franks and Greeks, in their own way, departed from ancient tradition. Unlike the East, however, where iconoclasm was repudiated at the [[Seventh Ecumenical Council]] and the use of icons later confirmed by the [[Theodora (9th century empress)|Empress Theodora]], the West to date never recovered from its departure.

===The "Photian" Schism===
Within a couple of generations, in 858, a new situation came to pass. The Eastern Emperor Michael III removed [[Ignatius of Constantinople|Ignatius I]] as patriarch of Constantinople. The emperor replaced him with a layman, St. [[Photius the Great]], who was the first Imperial Secretary and Imperial Ambassador to Baghdad. However, Ignatius refused to abdicate. Michael and Photius invited Pope [[Nicholas I of Rome]] to send legates to preside over a synod in Constantinople to settle the matter. With the council, the legates confirmed the patriarchate of Photius, much to Nicholas's chagrin, who then declared that they had "exceeded their authority."

In opposition to this removal of Ignatius, the bishop of Rome supported Ignatius as legitimate patriarch. Moreover, contrary to existing canons, Photius had been ordained to the office of bishop very quickly. Some scholarship suggests that violation of these canons was the main reason the bishop of Rome rejected the appointment of Photius, though other major actions by Nicholas to bolster his power and position as pope puts his intervention in Eastern ecclesiastical matters more firmly in the context of his general programme of the growth of papal monarchy.

Therefore, after the arrival of an embassy from Ignatius, in 862, Nicholas said that Photius was deposed, as well as the bishop who ordained him and all the clergy Photius had appointed. The sheer temerity of this action did not even generate a response from Constantinople. However, several years later in 867, Photius finally rejected the Pope's assertion, particularly because of the activities of Latin missionaries in Bulgaria, who were, as St. Photius says, turning the Orthodox Christians there away from their pure Orthodox faith and leading them into [[heresy]]—most notably, the ''filioque''. Photius' response cited the ''filioque'' as proof that Rome had a habit of overstepping its proper limits.

In 867 and 869-70, synods in Rome and Constantinople (the [[Robber Council of 869-870]]) restored Ignatius to his position as patriarch and deposed Photius. In 877, after the death of Ignatius, Photius again resumed office, by order of the emperor and by the request of Ignatius himself, to whom Photius had been reconciled. In 879-880, he was officially restored to his see and the ''filioque'' effectively condemned by the [[Eighth Ecumenical Council]], a council at which papal legates participated and which the current pope, [[John VIII of Rome|John VIII]], eventually confirmed. He was deposed in 886 when Leo VI took over as emperor, who had had a dispute with his father and turned his animosity for his father toward one of his father's friends, Photius. Photius spent the rest of his life as a monk in exile in Armenia; he is revered by the Orthodox today as a [[saint]], one of the great [[Pillars of Orthodoxy]]. He was the first important [[theologian]] to accuse Rome of [[heresy]] in the matter of the ''filioque''.

===Rome capitulates to Filioquist pressure===
In the ninth century, Pope [[Leo III of Rome]] agreed with the ''filioque'' phrase theologically but was opposed to adopting it in Rome, in part because of his loyalty to the received [[tradition]]. (He also knew that the Greeks resented the new Roman Empire in the West and Charlemagne in particular; the Pope wanted to preserve Church unity.) In fact, Leo had the traditional text of the Creed, without the ''filioque'', displayed publicly, having the original text engraved on two silver tablets, at the tomb of St. [[Apostle Peter|Peter]]. In any case, during the time of Pope Leo's leadership, 795-816, there was no Creed at all in the Roman Mass.

Later, in 1014, the German Emperor Henry II of the Holy Roman Empire visited Rome for his coronation and found that the Creed was not used during the Mass. At his request, the bishop of Rome added the Creed, as it was known in the West with the ''filioque'', after the Gospel. At this time, the papacy was very weak and very much under the influence of the Germans. For the sake of survival, the Pope needed the military support of the Emperor. This was the first time the phrase was used in the [[Mass]] at Rome.

Thus, over nearly six centuries, dispute over the ''filioque'' had not divided the Church definitively; for the most part, in spite of cultural and linguistic conflicts, the Eastern and Western Churches remained in [[full communion]].

In 1054, however, the argument contributed to the [[Great Schism]] of the East and West, and the West went so far as to accuse the East of heresy for not including the ''filioque'' in the Creed. There were many other issues involved, in large part based on misunderstandings between Greek and Latin traditions, as well as the irascible temperament of the antagonists. These were Cardinal [[Humbert]] from Rome and Patriarch [[Michael I Cerularius of Constantinople|Michael Cerularius]] of Constantinople. In addition to the actual difference in wording and doctrine in the ''filioque'', a related issue was the right of the Pope to make a change in the [[Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed]] on his own, apart from an [[Ecumenical Council]].

===Attempted reunions and the ''Filioque'' after the Schism===
In the thirteenth century, Thomas Aquinas was one of the dominant Scholastic theologians. He dealt explicitly with the processions of the divine Persons in his ''Summa Theologica''. While the theology of Aquinas and other Scholastics was dominant in the Western Middle Ages, for all its apparent clarity and brilliance, it remains theology, not official [[Roman Catholic Church]] teaching.

In 1274, the Second [[Council of Lyons]] said that the [[Holy Spirit]] proceeds from the [[God the Father|Father]] and the [[Christ|Son]], in accord with the ''filioque'' in the contemporary Latin version of the [[Nicene Creed]]. Reconciliation with the East, through this council, did not last. Remembering the Crusaders' sack of Constantinople in 1204, Orthodox Christians did not want to be reconciled with the West in terms of capitulation to Latin [[Triadology]] and [[ecclesiology]]. In 1283, Patriarch [[John Beccus]], who supported reconciliation with the Latin Church, was forced to abdicate; reunion failed.

The Crusaders in question were the Venetians of the [[Fourth Crusade]], who had earlier been excommunicated for attacking other Christians. In 1204, they were getting even for a slaughter of Venetian merchants, in rioting, that took place in 1182. Pope Innocent III had sent them a letter, asking them not to attack Constantinople; after hearing of the sack of the city, he lamented their action and disowned them. Nevertheless, the people of Constantinople had a deep hatred for the people they called the "Latins" or the "Franks," and of course the Western church's major "endowment" from the spoils carried away now still largely rests in the hands of the Vatican.

For much of the 14th century, there were two bishops, each claiming to be Pope, each excommunicating the followers of the other. The Great Western Schism concluded with yet a third individual claiming to be Pope and the Council of Constance. The East could hardly seek reconciliation with a Western Church divided among itself. (In the middle of the century, about a third of Western Europe died of the Black Death. People were more concerned about the plague than about Church unity.)

At the [[Council of Florence]] in 1439, Emperor [[John VIII Palaeologus]], Patriarch Joseph of Constantinople, and other bishops from the East travelled to northern Italy in hope of reconciliation with the West, mainly in order to solicit military assistance to fend off the encroaching Turkish invaders. After extensive discussion, in Ferrara, then in Florence, they acknowledged that some Latin Fathers spoke of the procession of the Spirit differently from the Greek Fathers. Since the general consensus of the Fathers was held to be reliable, as a witness to common faith, the Western usage was held not to be a heresy and not a barrier to restoration of full communion. All but one of the Orthodox bishops present agreed and signed a decree of union between East and West, ''Laetentur Coeli'' in 1439. The one bishop who refused to sign and was later heralded as a Pillar of Orthodoxy by the Church was St. [[Mark of Ephesus]], who followed in the footsteps of the previous Pillar of Orthodoxy, St. [[Photius the Great]].

Officially and publicly, Rome and the Orthodox Church were back in communion. However, the reconciliation achieved at Florence was soon destroyed, founded as it was on a compromise of faith. Numerous Orthodox faithful and bishops rejected the union. Moreover, after the Turks [[Fall of Constantinople|conquered Constantinople in 1453]], they fostered separation from the West, which remained an adversary to Islamic political and military dominance. Furthermore, the patriarch, Gennadius, was also one of the bishops who had repudiated the reunion of Florence on his own initiative.

Finally, the theology of rationalistic Western Scholasticism predominated among the Latin theologians and bishops and so obscured the biblical, patristic perspective long advocated by the East, in which the Spirit is said to proceed "from the Father" (as in [[Gospel of John|John]] 15:26) or, more rarely, "from the Father ''through'' the Son" (as in some of the Fathers). The Eastern bishops had not imbibed the rationalist intellectualism of the West, and so were unconvinced by the highly abstract and convoluted arguments of the Scholastics. Hence, the agreement of Florence, intellectually, represented in many respects an imposition of Scholastic theology.

Undeniably, the ''filioque'' controversy was at least officially resolved, for both Orthodox and Catholic. However, because of the historical situation and because of the different ecclesiologies of the East and West—in the East, the whole Church is seen as the guardian of faith, while for the West, the Magisterium maintains the faith—this resolution was neither fully received nor permanently sustained.

Though there had been a reunion [[Divine Liturgy|liturgy]] held in December of 1452 at [[Hagia Sophia (Constantinople)|Hagia Sophia]] in Constantinople at which the Pope's name was commemorated and the ''filioque'' used in the Creed, that had been largely boycotted by most of the clergy and laity in the city. On the evening of [[May 28]], 1453, however, another liturgy was held which also commemorated the Pope and used the ''filioque'', but which was not boycotted by the majority of the city. The next day, Constantinople fell to the Muslim invaders.

===Recent discussions and statements===
Dialogue on this and other subjects is continuing. The ''filioque'' clause was the main subject discussed at the 62nd meeting of the [[North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation]], which met at [[Holy Cross Greek Orthodox School of Theology (Brookline, Massachusetts)]] from [[June 3]] through [[June 5]], 2002, for their spring session. As a result of these modern discussions, it has been suggested that the Orthodox could accept an "economic" ''filioque'' that states that the Holy Spirit, who originates in the Father alone, was sent to the Church "through the Son" (as the [[Paraclete]]), but this is not official Orthodox doctrine. It is what the Fathers call a ''[[theologoumenon]]'', a theological opinion. (Similarly, the late Edward Kilmartin, S.J., proposed as a ''theologoumenon'' a "mission" of the Holy Spirit to the Church.)

Recently, an important, agreed statement has been made by the North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation, on [[October 25]], 2003. This document ''The Filioque: A Church-Dividing Issue?'', provides an extensive review of [[Scripture]], history, and [[theology]]. Especially critical are the recommendations of this consultation, for example:

#That all involved in such dialogue expressly recognize the limitations of our ability to make definitive assertions about the inner life of God.
#That, in the future, because of the progress in mutual understanding that has come about in recent decades, Orthodox and Catholics refrain from labeling as heretical the traditions of the other side on the subject of the procession of the Holy Spirit.
#That Orthodox and Catholic theologians distinguish more clearly between the divinity and hypostatic identity of the Holy Spirit (which is a received [[dogma]] of our Churches) and the manner of the Spirit's origin, which still awaits full and final ecumenical resolution.
#That those engaged in dialogue on this issue distinguish, as far as possible, the theological issues of the origin of the Holy Spirit from the ecclesiological issues of primacy and doctrinal authority in the Church, even as we pursue both questions seriously, together.
#That the theological dialogue between our Churches also give careful consideration to the status of later councils held in both our Churches after those seven generally received as ecumenical.
#That the Catholic Church, as a consequence of the normative and irrevocable dogmatic value of the Creed of 381, use the original Greek text alone in making translations of that Creed for catechetical and liturgical use.
#That the Catholic Church, following a growing theological consensus, and in particular the statements made by Pope Paul VI, declare that the condemnation made at the Second Council of Lyons (1274) of those "who presume to deny that the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son" is no longer applicable.

In the judgment of the consultation, the question of the ''filioque'' is no longer a "Church-dividing" issue, one which would impede full reconciliation and full communion, once again. It still stands for the bishops and faithful of the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches to review this work and to make whatever decisions would be appropriate.

==The ''Filioque'' as heresy==
There has never been a specific conciliar statement in the [[Orthodox Church]] which defined the ''filioque'' as [[heresy]]. That being said, however, it has been regarded as heretical by multiple Orthodox saints, including Ss. [[Photius the Great]], [[Mark of Ephesus]], and [[Gregory Palamas]] (the three Pillars of Orthodoxy). At the [[Third Ecumenical Council]] and the [[Eighth Ecumenical Council|"Photian" council of 879-880]] (both councils Rome signed onto), all changes to the Creed are anathematized. Further, it is explicitly denounced as heretical by the 1848 ''[[Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs]]''.

There are a number of reasons traditionally cited for the definition of the ''filioque'' as heretical, including the following:

===Objections on doctrinal grounds===
*It is contrary to Scripture, particularly in [[Gospel of John|John]] 15:26: "But when the Helper comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify of Me." Thus, Christ never describes the Holy Spirit as proceeding from himself, but only mentions the Spirit's procession in terms of the Father.

*The justifications for including the ''filioque'' in the Creed—bolstering the divinity of the Son and emphasizing the unity of the Trinity—are redundant, given the original wording of the Creed. That is, the Son already is described as "light of light, very God of very God," and so forth. The Spirit also "with the Father and Son together is worshiped and glorified." Additionally, the Creed itself begins with a statement of belief in "one God."

*The ''filioque'' distorts Orthodox [[Triadology]] by making the Spirit a subordinate member of the Trinity. Traditional Triadology consists in the notion that for any given trait, it must be either common to all Persons of the Trinity or unique to one of them. Thus, Fatherhood is unique to the Father, while begottenness is unique to the Son, and procession unique to the Spirit. Godhood, however, is common to all, as is eternality, uncreatedness, and so forth. Positing that something can be shared by two Persons (i.e., being the source of the Spirit's procession) but not the other is to elevate those two Persons at the expense of the other. Thus, the balance of unity and diversity is destroyed.

*Given the previous objection, the repercussions to the acceptance of the ''filioque'' into church life are potentially massive. Because how we relate to God is significantly affected by what we believe about him, false beliefs lead to damaging spirituality. One objection often raised about Filioquist theology is that it undermines the role of the Holy Spirit in the Church. Thus, with his role being denigrated, his traditional ministries are effaced or replaced. The Church's unity becomes dependent on an office, spirituality becomes adherence to the letter of the law rather than its spirit, sacraments come to be understood in terms of validity, and a spirit of legalism prevails.

===Objections on canonical and historical grounds===
*Though not really a question of heresy, a common objection is to the means of inserting the ''filioque'' into the Creed. That is, unlike the original adoption of the Creed at [[First Ecumenical Council|Nicea]] and its subsequent revision at [[Second Ecumenical Council|Constantinople]], the decision to include the ''filioque'' in the Creed was not done by an [[Ecumenical Council]]. Rather, it was initially inserted by the Third Synod of Toledo, Spain (589).

*Rome resisted the inclusion of the ''filioque'' for centuries. Leo III, the Pope of Rome at the time the ''filioque'' began its history in Western theology, strongly advised against its inclusion, even though he agreed with the soundness and validity of the doctrine contained in ''filioque''. Later, however, Rome contradicted its previous more Orthodox stance by the promulgation of the ''filioque'', thus anathematizing its own spiritual forebears.

==External links==
*[[Wikipedia:Filioque External Links: an Online Bibliography]]
*[http://www.geocities.com/trvalentine/orthodox/filioque.html Filioque Page], by Thomas Ross Valentine
*[http://www.romanity.org/htm/rom.17.en.the_filioque_in_the_dublin_agreed_statement_1984.01.htm The Filioque in the Dublin Agreed Statement 1984], by Fr. [[John S. Romanides]]
*[http://agrino.org/cyberdesert/Pelikan.htm The Filioque], by Prof. [[Jaroslav Pelikan]]
*[http://agrino.org/cyberdesert/meyendorf.htm On the Question of the Filioque], by Fr. [[John Meyendorff]]
*[http://agrino.org/cyberdesert/zizioulas.htm One Single Source], by Metr. [[John Zizioulas]]
*[http://www.energeticprocession.com/archives/Azkoul_filioque.pdf The Filioque: A Reply to the Agreed Statement of the North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation], by Fr. Michael Azkoul

[[Category:Church History]]
[[Category:Councils]]
[[Category:Creeds]]
[[Category:Ecumenical Councils]]
[[Category:Featured Articles]]
[[Category:Heresies]]

[[ro:Filioque]]